alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 10, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

THE BOEING COMPANY, INC.,

 Petitioner,

v.

JULIE HART, 

 Respondent. 

No. 10-703

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00397-REB-MEH)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER

Before MURPHY, O’BRIEN, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

The court has considered the “Petition for Leave to Appeal,” “Respondent’s

Opposition to Petitioner’s Petition for Leave to Appeal,” the petitioner’s “Reply in

Support of Petition for Leave to Appeal,” as well as the district court’s related orders.

The Boeing Company’s petition seeking leave to appeal an interlocutory order of

the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado is denied.

Judges Murphy and O’Brien vote to deny the petition. Judge Tymkovich votes to

grant the petition.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by: Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-703 Document: 01018474641 Date Filed: 08/10/2010 Page: 1
#### Snyder *v.*Nations.

*Friday, May*29.

A deaf and dumb person, who can be communicated with by signs,' is a competent witness under our statute, if he has sufficient discretion, and understands that perjury is punishable by law, though he has no conception of the religious obligation of an oath.

ERROR to the *Greene*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Assault and battery and false imprisonment; plea, general issue, with an agreement of the parties to give all matters in evidence, which could be specially pleaded; verdict for plaintiff below; motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment on the verdict.

On the trial, the plaintiff produced a deaf and dumb person as a Witness ; the defendant objected to his competency; the Court, through a sworn interpreter, caused him to be examined by means of signs touching the extent of his knowledge of the nature of an oath. It appeared he understood that perjury was punishable by law, but had no conception of the religious obligation of an oath. The interpreter swore he could communicate with the witness by signs. The Court admitted th¿ testimony, of this person, the defendant still objecting.

That a witness is deaf and dumb forms no objection to his admissibility; such a person, who can be communicated with by signs, is a competent witness at common law, if he has sufficient discretion and a proper sense of the sanctity of an oath. Stark, on Ev. part 4, p. 393. — Bac. Abr. tit. Ev. A, n. (b). By a statute of this state, it is enacted that want of religious faith shall not affect the competency of a witness, but shall go .only to his credibility. R. S. 1838, p. 275. This law, we conceive, removed the objection to the witness in question, which otherwise would have existed, on account of his ignorance that perjury might subject him to other than temporal punishment. The record does not inform us that .he was deficient in discretion.

As the record does not profess to set out all the evidence, we must presume the Circuit Court was right in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*296
      *H. L. Livingston*and *S. B. Gookins,*for the plaintiff.

*C. P.*Hester, for the defendant.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgments affirmed, with 5 *per cent.*damages and costs.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 1, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

GARY ABERNATHY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v. 

JULIE WANDES, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-1202

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00521-BNB)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1202 Document: 01018450787 Date Filed: 07/01/2010 Page: 1
S. 1720

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To provide for Federal court proceedings in Plano, Texas.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CHANGE IN COMPOSITION OF DIVISIONS OF EASTERN

DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 124(c) of title 28, United States Code,

is amended—

(1) in paragraph (3)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Denton, and Grayson’’ and inserting

‘‘Delta, Denton, Fannin, Grayson, Hopkins, and Lamar’’;

and

(B) by inserting ‘‘and Plano’’ after ‘‘held at Sherman’’;

(2) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs

(5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively;

and

(3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by inserting ‘‘Red

River,’’ after ‘‘Franklin,’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—This section and the amendments made

by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

of this Act.

(2) PENDING CASES NOT AFFECTED.—This section and the

amendments made by this section shall not affect any action

commenced before the effective date of this section and pending

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of Texas on such date.
S. 1720—2

(3) JURIES NOT AFFECTED.—This section and the amendments made by this section shall not affect the composition,

or preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned,

impaneled, or actually serving in the Eastern Judicial District

of Texas on the effective date of this section.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1778 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1778

 To authorize a land conveyance between the United States and the City 
               of Craig, Alaska, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 23, 2003

 Ms. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize a land conveyance between the United States and the City 
               of Craig, Alaska, and for other purposes.

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

 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Craig Recreation Land Purchase 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR CONVEYANCE.

    If the City of Craig, Alaska, (``City'') tenders all right, title 
and interest of the City in and to the municipal lands identified on 
the map entitled ``Informational Map, Sunnahae Trail and Recreation 
Parcel and Craig Cannery Property'' and dated August 2003, to the 
Secretary of Agriculture (``Secretary'') within six months of the date 
the City receives the results of the appraisal conducted pursuant to 
section 4, the Secretary shall accept such tender.

SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE CITY OF CRAIG.

    (a) Funds received by the City under section 2 shall be used by the 
City for the purchase of lands shown on the map entitled ``Wards Cove 
Property,'' dated March 24, 1969.
    (b) The purchase of lands by the City under subsection (a) shall be 
for an amount equal to the appraised value of the lands conveyed to the 
Secretary by the City, except that the Secretary and the City may 
equalize the values by adjusting acreage or by payments not to exceed 
$100,000.

SEC. 4. APPRAISAL.

    Prior to any conveyance, the Secretary shall--
            (1) conduct an appraisal of the lands identified for 
        conveyance by the City, in accordance with and conforming to 
        the most current versions of the Uniform Appraisal Standards 
        for Federal Land Acquisitions, Uniform Standards of 
        Professional Practice, and U.S. Forest Service Appraisal 
        Directives; and
            (2) notify the City of the results of the appraisal.

SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT OF CONVEYED LANDS.

    Lands received by the Secretary shall be included in the Tongass 
National Forest and shall be managed in accordance with the laws, 
regulations, and forest plan applicable to the Tongass National Forest.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION.

    There are authorized to be appropriated--
            (1) to the Forest Service for the reconstruction of the 
        Sunnahae Trail $250,000; and
            (2) such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2





Certification of Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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
















/s/ Brian W. WhiteBrian W. WhiteChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.60 Description of Severance Arrangements for Certain Officers of
Thermo Electron

The Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Thermo Electron has
approved severance arrangements for certain of its officers. Mr. Brian Holt,
Chief Operating Officer, Energy and Environment, and Mr. Theo Melas-Kyriazi,
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, will each receive a severance
payment of two times his base salary upon termination of his employment with
Thermo Electron, unless his employment is terminated for cause or he terminates
his employment voluntarily.
Exhibit 32.1

 

**Certification of Executive Chairman of the Board**

 

          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

    (i)          the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended May 3, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

Dated: June 10, 2008

 

| /s/ Clyde B. Anderson           |
|---------------------------------|
| Clyde B. Anderson               |
| Executive Chairman of the Board |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Larry
A. Goldstone, President and Chief Operating 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:


          (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/ Larry A. Goldstone



Larry A. Goldstone
President and Chief Operating Officer
August 12, 2002
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 129596 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 129596 COA: 262850 Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices Wayne CC: 03-013127-01

v
RAQUEL NICOLE KOPSOLIAS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 10, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System 


Project Demonstration Mission 


2013-01-02 (AC-Ol) 


Recommendation: 

The NASA Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) Project 


plans as part oftheir next phase ofresearch a variety offlight tests to validate concepts 


developed as part oftheir research. The Council recommends that in addition to these flight 


tests, one or more "capstone" demonstrations be incorporated into the program plan. These 


"graduation exercises" should serve to pull together and focus multiple research threads, and 


provide a compelling test or demonstration that the program's various stakeholder will find 


compelling and convincing. The Council encourages NASA to continue working with the UAS 


Subcommittee in the development of such a capstone demonstration. 


Major Reasons for Proposing the Recommendation: 


The Council is concerned that sufficient impact is made as a result ofthe project's research. 


These capstone demonstrations would find their way onto the integrated master plan, and 


would ideally involve both NASA and outside participants, demonstrating the access barriers 


broken down as a result ofthe NASA research. 


Consequences of No Action on the Proposed Recommendation: 


Absent compelling capstone events, the various research elements may never achieve the 


desired synergy. 


NASA Response: 


NASA concurs with the recommendation. The UAS Integration in the NAS Project is in the 


process of designing the Capstone Demonstration to be flown during Phase 2 ofthe project. 


This will most likely occur during FYI6. The project presented a summary of progress to date 


to the NAC Aeronautics Committee's UAS Subcommittee during a briefing at NASA 


Headquarters on May 21,2013. The briefing included specific objectives, success criteria, and 


resource requirements. In addition, the project presented three candidate Capstone 


Demonstration scenarios and an assessment ofthe three candidates against specific phases of 


flight. An important topic during the Capstone Demonstration discussion was related to 


whether the Demonstration should be flown in restricted airspace or in the National Airspace 


System. This is a key question to be answered that affects the pathway forward to get approval 


to actually fly the Demonstration and will be addressed as we continue to evaluate each ofthe 


various scenarios. The project will look at a variety of pros and cons for each scenario, 


including high-level evaluation of objective satisfaction, cost, benefit, and risk. The project 


will follow up with a briefing to the Subcommittee currently scheduled for mid-July 2013 with 


a definitive proposal to the Subcommittee. 


Enclosure
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. CLAXTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

No. 79-1527.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 14, 1980.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, John G. Elligers, Lafe E. Solomon, Attys., John S. Irving, Gen. Counsel, John E. Higgins, Jr., Deputy Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Allen, Acting Associate Gen. Counsel, Michael F. Messitte, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Mitchell, Clarke, Pate & Anderson, James W. Wimberly, Jr., James P. Cobb, Atlanta, Ga., for respondent.

Curtis L. Mack, Director, Region 10, Atlanta, Ga., for other interested party.

Before GODBOLD, GEE and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion to clarify this Court’s opinion filed on March 21, 1980, 613 F.2d 1364 (5 Cir.) is GRANTED. The following is added to our opinion in this case:

The case is REMANDED to the Board for an evidentiary hearing.
#### Marquis *v.*Rogers, Administrator.

Debt against an administrator on a promissory note of the deceased. Pleas, 1. No consideration; 2. No goods of the deceased; 3. *Plene administravit;*4. Failure of consideration. Replication to the 1st and 4th pleas, that the note was given on a sufficient consideration. Replication to the 2d and 3d pleas, that the defendant had assets.

*Held,*that the first replication, so far as it related to the 4th plea, was a nullity. *Held,*also, that the affirmative of the issues on the 2d and 3d pleas was on the plaintiff, and that he had a right to begin. *Held,*also, that evidence of payment was inadmissible under the issues.

The party complaining of a refusal to give an instruction to the jury must show that there was evidence to which the instruction was applicable.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Blackeord, J.

This was an action of debt on three promissory notes given by the defendant’s intestate to the plaintiff. Pleas, 1. No consideration; 2. No goods of the deceased in the defendant’s hands; 3. *Plene administravit;*4. Failure of consideration. Replication to the 1st and 4th pleas, that the notes were given on a sufficient consideration. Replication to the 2d and 3d jileas, that the defendant had assets. The first replication, so far as it relates to the 4th plea, is a nullity. It does not attempt to answer the alleged failure of consideration. The cause was tried by a jury. Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

After the evidence on the trial was closed, the plaintiff moved the Court for leave to open and conclude the argument in the cause, but the motion was overruled. The affirmative of the issues on the 2d and 3d pleas was on the jilaintiff. *Bentley*v. *Bentley,*7 Cowen, 701. — 2 Greenl. Ev. 277. He had, therefore, a right to begin.

There were several instructions asked for by the plaintiff *119and' refused. It is not shown that there was any evidence to which these instructions were applicable, and we cannot therefore, that the refusal was erroneous.

*D. Wallace*and *R.*Brackenridge, for the plaintiff.

*D. H. Colerick*and *H.*Cooper, for the defendant.

On motion of the defendant, the Court instructed the jury that if they found that the notes were paid, their verdict should be for the defendant. This instruction was wrong.

The defendant could not, under the issues, prove payment of the notes.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant

v.

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., CELLTRION, INC., APOTEX INC., Appellees

______________________

2023

- 1395, 2023

- 1396

______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021

- 00880, IPR202 1

- 00881, IPR2022

- 00257, IPR2022

- 00258,
IPR2022

- 00298, IPR2022

- 00301.

______________________ O R D E R

The parties, having so agreed,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The above

- captioned appea ls are dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side to bear their own costs.

July 9 , 2024
Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 9 , 2024 Case: 23-1395 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 07/09/2024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert Louis ALMADA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-50635.

D.C. No. CR-01-1169-TJH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*732Submitted Aug. 4, 2003.*

Decided Aug. 11, 2003.

Before KOZINSKI and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,** Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.

**

 The Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Gilbert Louis Almada appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), two counts of misappropriation or embezzlement of money of an insurer (18 U.S.C. § 1033(b)), and one count of making a false statement to a government agency (18 U.S.C. § 100(a) and 3571(b)(3)).

First, Almada challenges his sentence because the district court did not make specific findings of fact as to controverted matters. Almada does not allege he was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence relating to controverted facts, rather he alleges the district court did not make the required factual findings. He is correct. The district court indicated it was following the recommendation of the pre-sentence report but the court did not say it agreed with the factual findings contained therein. Thus, as to both the calculation of the amount of restitution and the controverted facts which may relate to discretionary sentencing decisions, the district court must make findings, or decide that the controverted matter will not affect the sentencing or that the matter will not be considered. *See United States v. Fernandez-Angulo,*897 F.2d 1514, 1516 (9th Cir.1990).

Second, Almada claims that the district court misapprehended its authority to depart downward. The district court made no statement that could be interpreted as evidence of such a belief and the *733government did not urge the court to such a conclusion. Thus, we are without jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision not to depart. *See United States v. Garcia-Garcia,*927 F.2d 489, 490-91 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam).

Finally, the district court did not breach Almada’s plea agreement, as it was not a party to the agreement. *See United States v. Anglin,*215 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.2000) (the court is free to adjust a sentence in any lawful way regardless of the terms of the plea agreement.).

SENTENCE VACATED and case REMANDED for factual findings on the matters which were controverted at the time of the original sentencing. After making the necessary findings, the court shall re-sentence the Defendant.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.