alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BABY TREND, INC., DENNY TSAI, BETTY TSAI,

Appellants

v.

WONDERLAND NURSERYGOODS CO., LTD.,

Appellee

ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________

2019-2309

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-

00842.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R. TREVOR CARTER, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath 

LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for appellants. Also represented by 

REID E. DODGE, ANDREW M. MCCOY; JOEL SAYRES, Denver, 

CO. 

Case: 19-2309 Document: 72 Page: 1 Filed: 11/17/2020
 GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC, 

for appellee. Also represented by JOHN MARLOTT, Chicago, 

IL; JOSHUA R. NIGHTINGALE, Pittsburgh, PA. 

 MAUREEN DONOVAN QUELER, Office of the Solicitor, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, 

VA, for intervenor. Also represented by SARAH E. CRAVEN,

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, MOORE, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

November 17, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-2309 Document: 72 Page: 2 Filed: 11/17/2020
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no

precedenti al value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of wellsettled pr inciples of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 95-60267 Summary Calendar

_______________

BARBARA L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS ROBERT E. RUBIN, Secretary of the Treasury,

and FRANK GILBERT, Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:93-CV-458)

_________________________ December 1, 1995 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Barbara Williams, who is black, worked for the Internal Revenue Service and sued for race and sex discrimination, later dropping her sex-based claim. She contends a white woman was2

given a promotion over her because of race. The district court conducted a full bench trial and found no discrimination. We find no error in this decision. At trial, Williams was the only witness for the plaintiff. She admitted she knew of no reason she had not received the promotion except that she had received a lower evaluation than did the woman who

was promoted. There was absolutely no evidence of racial animus or motive. Williams claims the district judge should have recused because of a statement he made to the effect that he is audited annually by the Internal Revenue Service and is friends with it. Williams raised this for the first time on appeal, so she has waived the issue. Moreover, the transcript does not contain the
statement that Williams claims was made, an d the court reporter has confirmed that the record is accurate in this regard. Willi a ms claims the district court improperly excluded a
statement by Williams’s manager. There is no showing that the
statement even referred to Williams, directly or indi rectly. Moreover, the statement does not refer in any way to race. The district court was within its discretion in excluding the
statement.
AFFIRMED.
[No. 60187-9.

Department Two.

May 20, 1993.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Demeco M. Duggins, *Petitioner.*

*Jessica Ryan*of *Washington Appellate Defender Association,*for petitioner.

*Norm Maleng, Prosecuting Attorney,*and *Sally Olsen, Deputy,*for respondent.

*525Per Curiam.

Demeco Duggins seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming his juvenile conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Duggins contends the trial court should not have granted a continuance to the State when its witness failed to appear, because the witness was not personally served with a subpoena. Even after the continuance, however, Duggins was tried within the speedy trial period specified by JuCR 7.8. The Court of Appeals therefore found no reversible error.

We agree that because Duggins was tried within the speedy trial period defined by JuCR 7.8 there is no basis for dismissing the prosecution under that rule. This holding is all that is necessary to affirm Duggins' conviction.

Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals went on to say alternatively that the prosecutor had acted with due diligence by mailing a subpoena to the law enforcement witness, even though the witness did not receive the subpoena. The court's discussion could be misleading to the extent it fails to give proper weight to *State v. Adamski,*111 Wn.2d 574, 761 P.2d 621 (1988). As this court held in *Adamski,*when lack of notice of a subpoena results in the absence of a State's witness, the State cannot show due diligence, for purposes of JuCR 7.8, unless the subpoena was served by one of the methods described in CR 45(c).

Duggins' conviction is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<CIK>                                 0000919998
<NAME>                                BOA
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-25-1998
<CASH>                                          4,061
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  98,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                   105,751
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              212,413
<PP&E>                                        183,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                442,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         103,147
<BONDS>                                         8,225
<COMMON>                                      297,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  442,882
<SALES>                                       118,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              118,246
<CGS>                                          75,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 104,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  764
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                11,785
<INCOME-TAX>                                    4,134
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             7,651
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    7,651
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.39
        




</TABLE>
#### AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 SecAF visits Mountain HomePublished Feb. 24, 2015
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Jessica H. Smith
                        
                        
                        366th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE, Idaho (AFNS) --**
                Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James visited here Feb. 18, to experience the base firsthand and meet the service members dedicated to making it run efficiently.Superior performers from many career fields were given the opportunity to meet James and discuss the responsibilities they have in their daily jobs.She also attended the annual awards ceremony as the guest speaker to give encouraging words to Airmen of all ranks.Winners and nominees alike were recognized by James."We should all strive to match their example," she said, "Whether it's donating a few hours serving as a tutor, or cleaning up a highway, or volunteering for Airmen Against Drunk Driving."James expressed that this is the essence of the Air Forces core value of service before self. She went on to express the importance of adhering to all three of the core values."The Air Force wants experts in their field -- people who have passion, people who have dedication, people who will be devoted to the duty, no matter what that duty may be," she added.She reminded Airmen that the American people depend on them to provide airpower across the globe wherever and whenever it's needed, no matter what career field they're in."We need to focus on our primary duty, become excellent, be passionate about it," James said. “In order to be the best we can, we have to realize the importance of wingmanship."All of us have our wingmen who help us accomplish the mission, because no one ever succeeds alone."She issued a challenge for Airmen to reach out to those who've helped them become the Airmen they are, and to thank them for the mentorship."Each person in this room, on this base and across our Air Force has a vital role to play in our nation's defense," she said.James paid tribute to the Gunfighter team -- ending the night by quoting the base motto, "Never forget - audentes fortuna juvat -- fortune favors the bold."Deborah Lee James 



Mountain Home AFB 



ACC 



SecAF Related Links
        DEBORAH LEE JAMES
                                June 18, 2015
                                23rd Secretary of the Air Force
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10395

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TRAMAINE DEVION RUTH,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-105-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tramaine Devion 

Ruth has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ruth has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10395 Document: 00515177586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2019
No. 19-10395

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-10395 Document: 00515177586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2019
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, leadership time 
is reserved.

                          ____________________
```
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00426

- CV
La Joya Independent School District

v. Tanya Gonzalez, Individually and A/N/F of Josue Rogelio Uranga, Deceased Minor

On a ppeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 4 063

- 12

- J

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged
ag ainst appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 2, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
               <LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE TRANS ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
               QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
               FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                                    0
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        64,686
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     64,686
<PP&E>                                           10,317,339    
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,823,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12,428,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6,495,671
<BONDS>                                           1,744,441
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              2,139
<OTHER-SE>                                       12,867,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12,428,664
<SALES>                                             473,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    473,006
<CGS>                                               303,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       855,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  139,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (282,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (282,210)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (282,210)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.16)
        

</TABLE>
#### LOUIS I. BLAINE v. NATIONAL TANK FABRICATORS, INC.

Dec. 10, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Dan J. HARRISON, Jr., Appellant, v. ENERGY GATHERING, INC., Appellee.

No. 1030.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

June 5, 1974.

Robert L. Burns, Sears and Burns, Houston, Herbert C. Petry, Jr., Petry & Petry, Carrizo Springs, for appellant.

Kenneth Oden, Perkins, Davis, Oden & Warburton, Alice, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. After the appeal was perfected, appellee, plaintiff below, took a non-suit in the main case in the trial court, and the case was dismissed without prejudice. Therefore, the temporary injunction ceased to exist at that point in time, and this appeal has become moot. International Ass’n of Machinists v. Federated Ass’n of Accessory Workers, 133 Tex. 624, 130 S.W.2d 282 (Tex.Comm’n App.1939, opinion adopted).

Appellee has filed a motion requesting this Court to dismiss the appeal. It is the general rule in Texas that when a case on appeal has become moot, the appellate court should dismiss the case, rather than the appeal. International Ass’n of Machinists v. Federated Ass’n of Accessory Workers, *supra.*No reason appears to us why we should vary from that rule in this case. *See*United Services Automobile Association v. Lederle, 400 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.Sup.1966).

Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled. The temporary injunction case is dismissed. All costs are taxed against appellee.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1009 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from 

the definition of marihuana, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. 

GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. STARK, and Ms. WOOLSEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for 

a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Industrial Hemp 

5 Farming Act of 2007’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1009 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINI2 TION OF MARIHUANA. 

3 Paragraph (16) of section 102 of the Controlled Sub4 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) is amended— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘(16)’’ at the beginning and in6 serting ‘‘(16)(A)’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(B) The term ‘marihuana’ does not include indus10 trial hemp. As used in the preceding sentence, the term 

11 ‘industrial hemp’ means the plant Cannabis sativa L. and 

12 any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a 

13 delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not 

14 exceed 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.’’. 

15 SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION TO BE MADE 

16 BY STATES. 

17 Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

18 U.S.C. 811) is amended by adding at the end the following 

19 new subsection: 

20 ‘‘(i) INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION TO BE

21 MADE BY STATES.—In any criminal action, civil action, 

22 or administrative proceeding, a State regulating the grow23 ing and processing of industrial hemp under State law 

24 shall have exclusive authority to determine whether any 

25 such plant meets the concentration limitation set forth in 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 1009 IH

1 subparagraph (B) of paragraph (16) of section 102 and 

2 such determination shall be conclusive and binding.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
News United States Air Force
 BLUE: The Spirit of ExplorationPublished Dec. 30, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force News Service
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- Air Force TV has released the latest episode of the Air Force's flagship television program, BLUE.
Have you ever dreamed of going into space? In this episode of BLUE, we meet two Air Force astronauts who share their experiences and give us a glimpse into the future of space exploration.astronaut 



NASA 



BLUE 



space
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Point Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three and nine-month periods endedSeptember 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard N. Small, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: November 10, 2003 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Point Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Point Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.02


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Foreland Corporation, (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
C. Decker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Bruce C. Decker
---------------------------
Bruce C. Decker
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23669]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Time and Date: 12 p.m., Monday, September 20, 2010.
    The business of the Board requires that this meeting be held with 
less than one week's advance notice to the public, and no earlier 
announcement of the meeting was practicable.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Implications of Dodd-Frank Reform Act for Board Organization and 
Staffing.

For more information please contact: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-23669 Filed 9-17-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P