alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10189 Summary Calendar

DOUGLAS SCOTT NOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JERRY BAGGS, Warden, Dickens County Correctional Center; WAYNE BRAZEE, Lieutenant and Mailroom Supervisor at Dickens County Correctional Center Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:99-CV-79-C

-------------------- February 4, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Douglas Scott Nowell (“Nowell”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in which Nowell alleged that, while housed at Dickens County Correctional Center, his First Amendment rights were violated by the defendants’ denial of access to outside publications. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo , applying the same standard as would the district court.No. 01-10189 -2- Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am. , 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). Prisoners retain only those First Amendment rights of speech that are consistent with their status as prisoners or with the legitimate penological objectives of the prison. Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 523 (1984). Regulations affecting the sending of publications to prisoners are scrutinized to determine whether they are “‘reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’” Thornburgh v. Abbott , 490 U.S. 401, 404 (1989) (quoting Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)). Legitimate penological interests include security, order, and rehabilitation. Procunier v. Martinez , 416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974); Adams v. Gunnell , 729 F.2d 362, 367 (5th Cir. 1984). Nowell has failed to establish that the defendants’ interest in limiting and monitoring his access to publications violated his First Amendment rights. See Cruz v. Hauck , 515 F.2d 322, 333 (5th Cir. 1975). He has also failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his discovery requests. See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist. , 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Peter R. Huntsman, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman International Holdings LLC for the year ended December 31, 2003;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of and for the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 30, 2004

| |  | /s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,756,843
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,300,084
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,774,428
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,096,466
<PP&E>                                      97,649,904
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,429,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              97,468,590
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,720,923
<BONDS>                                     10,022,868
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       15,955,155
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        38,434
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,834,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                97,468,590
<SALES>                                     25,834,270<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,834,270<F1>
<CGS>                                       19,272,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,662,713
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (72,687)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             192,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (948,596)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (265,806)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (682,790)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (682,790)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
<FN>
<F1>Sales and Total Revenues are net of federal and state excise taxes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2121 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2121

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                            State of Nevada.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2004

   Mr. Reid introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 
  the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 
                            State of Nevada.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE COST 
              ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN NEVADA.

    (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) No cca areas within nevada.--A CCA area shall not 
        include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
        Nevada.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of the Medicare Prescription 
Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with the  accompanying  annual report on Amendment No. 4 to Form
10-KSB of  Championlyte  Holdings,  Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2002,
David Goldberg,  Principal  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
Championlyte Holdings, Inc. hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to the
best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1. Such amended  Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31,
2002,  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 such Annual  Report on Amendment No. 3 to Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002, fairly presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial  condition  and results of  operations of  Championlyte
Holdings, Inc.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Championlyte Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by it and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                           CHAMPIONLYTE HOLDINGS, INC.

Dated: March 15, 2005

By: David Goldberg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2019

No. 04-18-00252-CR

Benjamin ESCOBEDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4634

Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On December 27, 2018, this court issued its opinion in this appeal. Appellant did not file 

a motion for reconsideration or rehearing en banc. On May 8, 2019, the court of criminal appeals 

refused appellant’s pro se petition for discretionary review. On June 6, 2019, appellant filed a 

motion to amend the judgment, which this court denied on June 14, 2019. The mandate issued on 

June 17, 2019. 

On July 9, 2019, appellant filed a motion for en banc reconsideration of his motion to 

amend the judgment. Because the mandate in this cause has issued, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider appellant’s motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 19.3. Accordingly, appellant’s motion is 

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of July, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2136

_____________________________ C HARLES O SBORN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for L eon County

. James C. Hankinson , Judge

. November 21, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OBERTS , M AKAR , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.33 1

.

_____________________________

Charles Osborn, pro se
, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### STATE v. ROBINSON

No. 544A01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 658

Motion by defendant (Carlyle Poindexter, Surety) to withdraw appeal allowed 8 November 2001.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID W. IRONS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. 

ENDRE SAMU; ANITA BLOOR;

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1124

(D.C. No. 1:06-CV-02254-PAB-BNB) 

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for voluntarily dismissal of this matter is granted. 10th Cir. R.

27.3(A)(9).

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

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1124 Document: 01018410292 Date Filed: 04/27/2010 Page: 1
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LAUREN BLUESTONE

, Appellant,

v.

BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2423

[ June 13, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Hon. Shari Africk

- Olefson , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CACE23

- 002887

.

Lauren Peffer of L. Turner Law, Boca Raton, for appellant.

Andrew J. Meyers and Joseph K. Jarone of Broward County Attorney ’ s Office, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

X-59

• The X-59 will fly supersonic, or faster than the speed of sound. 

• QueSST is short for Quiet SuperSonic Technology. 

FLIGHT LOG 

ENDORSEMENT 

CODE: 

COLPG59 

• The X-59 is designed to make sonic booms that are quieter than other supersonic airplanes. 

Want to learn more about the X-59? Go to: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/X59/
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0001479 18-MAY-2015 10:46 AM SCWC-13-0001479 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

LIONEL LETOTO, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0001479; S.P.P. NO. 12-1-0051; FC-CR. NO. 06-1-0017) ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner’s May 4, 2015, motion for reconsideration of this court’s order rejecting application for writ of certiorari, filed on April 8, 2015, and pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(h), neither acceptance nor rejection of an application for a writ of certiorari shall be subject to a motion for reconsideration. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, May 18, 2015. Lionel Letoto petitioner pro se on the motion /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson
#### Wynn *v.*Kiser.

Thursday, *December*5.

A transitory action may be commenced against a single defendant, in the Circuit Court of any county in which he may be found.

ERROR to the *Bartholomew*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— Assumpsit. Plea in abatement, that the suit was commenced in the *Bartholomew'*Circuit Court, and the process served in that county ; that at the time of issuing and serving the writ, the defendant was a resident and citizen of *Jackson*county, and not liable to be sued in *Bartholomew.*Replication, that the defendant was found in the last-named county, and the writ served upon him there. Demurrer to the replication sustained; and the cause dismissed.

Tlie question is whether the plea is valid.

The defendant in error has not informed us upon what rule of law he relies to sustain the plea; and we know none *300which ,can sustain it. The action is transitory, and against a single defendant; and we have no statute forbidding the plaintiff to sue him in the Circuit Court-of any county in which he could catch him.

*A. A. Hammond, W. Herod,,*and *S.*Major, for the plaintiff.

*H. H. Barbour*and *H, P.*Thornton, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam,*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

John H. Glenn Research Center

Lewis Field

Cleveland, OH 44135-3191

August 26, 2009

Reply to Attn of: CHC

To: Prospective GSA Schedule Offeror’s

 

From: NASA Glenn Research Center

 Institutional Services Branch

 Attn: Eunice J. Adams-Sipp

 21000 Brookpark Road, MS 500-312

 Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Subject: NNC09ZCH018Q, Financial Analysis and Business Support Services (FABSS)

 

The NASA Glenn Research Center has a requirement for Financial Analysis and Business Support 

services. The work effort includes, but not be limited to: Financial and Accounting Analysis, Financial 

Reporting, Process Improvement Reviews, Organizational Alignment Support, Full-Cost Accounting and 

Management Support and Training Support. 

It is the intent of the Government to meet these requirements by placing a single Blanket Purchase 

Agreement (BPA) against the GSA Schedule Contract for Financial and Business Solutions Support 

(FABSS). Only contractors currently on GSA Schedule 520, SINs 11 and 12 will be considered for 

an award. NASA will issue an IDIQ/Labor Hour type contract with a 5 (Five) year ordering period. It is 

anticipated total value of the BPA will be in the range of $17M depending on Agency needs during the 

contracting period.

Offerors technical and price proposals will be evaluated using the trade-off adjectival ratings method. 

Technical Capability, Past Performance and Cost/Price are approximately equal in value. 

Please pay special attention to RFQ Sections L and M which provide detailed information on 

proposal requirements and the evaluation process. Although it is our intent to place future task 

orders using the awarded BPA, NASA reserves the right to compete any future task orders 

independently of the awarded BPA. 

The tentative procurement schedule is as follows: 

Issue RFQ August 26, 2009

Question Cut off. September 16, 2009

Past Performance Questionnaires due: September 23, 2009

Proposal Receipt: September 28, 2009

Evaluation completed: October 23, 2009

Selection: October 30, 2009

Contract Award: November 9, 2009

Phase-In Begins: December 1, 2009

Task Order Discussions: December 2 – 4, 2009

Issue Tasks: November 7 – 11, 2009

Full Contract Performance: January 1, 2010
2

The firms that received this RFQ are listed in the Distribution section of this letter. 

Electronic correspondence related to this action shall be forwarded to Eunice.J.Adams-Sipp@nasa.gov.

For addition information, contact Eunice Adams-Sipp (216) 433-6644.

Eunice J. Adams-Sipp

Contract Specialist

Distribution:

Booz Allen Hamilton

Brooks & Associates, LLC

Grant Thornton, LLP

LR Compton II, LLC

Powertek Corporation

Tai Pedro & Associates, P.C.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         124,182
<SECURITIES>                                    61,506
<RECEIVABLES>                                  238,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,585
<INVENTORY>                                    103,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               564,452
<PP&E>                                         117,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 664,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,074
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           358
<OTHER-SE>                                     424,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   664,986
<SALES>                                      1,180,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,180,856
<CGS>                                          996,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  996,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               149,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,822
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,529
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,293
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,293
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.67


</TABLE>
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 1, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: ALAN P. WOODRUFF;

GREEN PARTY OF NEW MEXICO,

Petitioners.

No. 10-2065

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00449-JCH-KMB)

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00123-JCH-KMB)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Alan P. Woodruff and the Green Party of New Mexico seek a writ of

mandamus compelling U.S. District Judge Judith C. Herrera to rule on various

motions they have filed in their actions against the New Mexico Secretary of

State challenging the state’s Election Code and to expedite all future proceedings

in their cases. We deny the writ.

“[A] writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy, and is to be invoked only in

extraordinary circumstances.” In re Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 568 F.3d 1180,

1186 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will

issue the writ “only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its

prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty

to do so.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Petitioners do not accuse the

district court in this case of exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction. Rather, they

Appellate Case: 10-2065 Document: 01018395459 Date Filed: 04/01/2010 Page: 1
-2-

contend that in not immediately ruling on their various motions, the court is

failing to exercise its authority in contravention of its duty. The Supreme Court

has made clear that “where a district court persistently and without reason refuses

to adjudicate a case properly before it, the court of appeals may issue the writ in

order that it may exercise the jurisdiction of review given by law.” Will v.

Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 662 (1978) (internal quotation marks

omitted). It is essential, however, that the petitioner show his right to the writ is

clear and indisputable, and that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief

he desires. Cooper Tire, 568 F.3d at 1187. Furthermore, we must be satisfied in

the exercise of our discretion that issuance of the writ is appropriate under the

circumstances. Id.

We have considered the petition in light of the district court’s rulings, and

we conclude the petitioners have failed to show they have no other adequate

means to attain relief and that their right to the writ is clear and indisputable. The

petition is therefore DENIED.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2065 Document: 01018395459 Date Filed: 04/01/2010 Page: 2