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

January 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40754

Summary Calendar

 

SIDNEY MERRILL,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICK PERRY, Governor; GARY JOHNSON;

SUSAN SCHUMACHER; TRINCI, Warden;

DIANA ELEPHANT; ET AL.,

 DefendantsAppellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CV-165

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sidney Merrill, Texas prisoner # 406322, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil

rights complaint for failure to pay the filing fee. Merrill has asserted that he has attempted to comply

with the court’s orders to pay the fee but officials at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
 

-2-

(TDCJ) where he isimprisoned have not complied with hisrequestsfor a withdrawalfromhisinmate

trust account. Merrill has also filed a motion for a restraining order and protection.

Although the district court dismissed Merrill’ssuit without prejudice, he is effectively barred

from refiling one of his personal injury claims because of the two-year statute of limitations. See

Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 879-80 (5th Cir. 1996)(statute of limitations can cause a dismissal

without prejudice to operate as a dismissal with prejudice); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50

(1989) (the general provision injury statute of limitations for the forum state is used for 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 claims); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a) (West 1998)(two-year injury

limitations period in Texas). It does not appear from the face of the record that Merrill’s failure to

pay the filing fee resulted from“delay or contumacious conduct.” See Colle v. Brazos County, Tex.,

981 F.2d 237, 243 (5th Cir. 1993). It is therefore ORDERED that the judgment of the district court

dismissing Merrill’s complaint be VACATED and that the case be REMANDED for further

proceedings. Merrill’s motion for a restraining order and protection is DENIED. 

VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         553,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  450,116
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,003,796
<PP&E>                                      16,199,479
<DEPRECIATION>                               (209,859)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,993,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,743
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,856,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,993,416
<SALES>                                      2,000,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,063,427
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  469,415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,594,012
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,594,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,594,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

March 27, 2024

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group

TO: Distribution

FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Space Policy 

Institute, George Washington University Dinner on April 5, 2024

On April 5, 2024, the Space Policy Institute (SPI), George Washington University (GWU), a 

nonprofit organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a dinner at the 

DACOR Bacon House, 1801 F Street NW, Washington, DC, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The 

guest speaker is Aarti Holla-Maini, Director, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs 

(UNOOSA).

Approximately 110 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of 

views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local 

government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies, 

academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all 

food and beverages, is $127 per person. SPI is in control of the organizing, planning and 

invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange 

information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements 

of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2). 

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the 

event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and 

views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including 

NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under 

Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests 

of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those 

circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the 

individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their 

duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the 

interests of the SPI/GWU, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating 

or administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their 

local ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation. 

for Adam F. Greenstone
#### THE STATE v. EMERSON, Appellant.

(No. 2.)

Division Two,

May 16, 1905.

APPELLATE PRACTICE: No Bill of Exceptions. Where no bill of exceptions is filed, and there are no errors in the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from Greene Criminal Court.— *Eon. J. J. Gideon,*Judg'e.

Akeiemed.

*Wright Bros. & Blair*for appellant..

*Herbert 8. Hadley,*Attorney-General, and *John Kennish,*Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

FOX, J.

This cause reaches this court by appeal from a judgment by the Greene County Criminal Court, of conviction of the defendant for grand larceny.

The prosecution was predicated upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Greene county, *415in which the defendant is charged with stealing a cow in Greene county, on the '30th day of September, 1903.

There was no bill of exceptions filed in the cause and it is here simply upon the record proper. We have examined the record and find that in all essential particulars it is substantially in proper form. It js a companion case to one against the same defendant decided by Judge Gantt at the present sitting of this court. The records are alike, and present the same questions.

Adopting the views expressed by Gantt, J.; as well as the conclusions reached, it results in the affirmance of the judgment, and it is so ordered.

*Gantt, J.,*concurs; *Burgess, P. J.,*absent.
Exhibit 23.2
  Consent
    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
     (1)
    Registration Statement
    (Form S-8
    No. 333-163240)
    pertaining to the Rudolph Technologies, Inc. 2009 Stock Plan and
    the Rudolph Technologies, Inc. 2009 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,(2)
    Registration Statement
    (Forms S-8
    No. 333-149705,
    No. 333-129773,
    and No.
    333-104349)
    pertaining to the Rudolph Technologies, Inc. 1999 Stock Plan and
    the Rudolph Technologies, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,(3)
    Registration Statement
    (Form S-8
    No. 333-132283)
    pertaining to the August Technology Corporate 1997 Stock
    Incentive Plan, and(4)
    Registration Statement
    (Form S-8
    No. 333-92443)
    pertaining to the Rudolph Technologies, Inc. 1996 Non-Qualified
    Stock Option Plan, the Rudolph Technologies, Inc. 1999 Stock
    Plan and the Rudolph Technologies, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock
    Purchase Plan;  (Form 10-K)
#### MARY MORAVSKI v. ROBERT J. MORAVSKI.

May 8, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 31.1

                                      INTERPHARM HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Dr. Maganlal K. Sutaria, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interpharm Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 officer and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) Presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:    November  15, 2004

/s/ Dr. Maganlal K., Sutaria
------------------------
Dr. Maganlal K., Sutaria
Chief Executive Officer

                                                                              26
- EHP 101 Cover
- EHP 101 slide 1
- EHP 101 slide 2
- EHP 101 slide 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF ARGENT CAPITAL
CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,586
<PP&E>                                       1,288,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                 560,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,727,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          812,756
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,741
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,905,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,727,262
<SALES>                                         14,642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,672
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,043,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,028,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 240,341
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,788,021)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.42)


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"La Movilidad A\u00e9rea Avanzada Ayuda al Transporte de Mercanc\u00edas","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5t9rimrJQn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/drones\/la-movilidad-aerea-avanzada-ayuda-al-transporte-de-mercancias\/\">La Movilidad A\u00e9rea Avanzada Ayuda al Transporte de Mercanc\u00edas<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/drones\/la-movilidad-aerea-avanzada-ayuda-al-transporte-de-mercancias\/embed\/#?secret=5t9rimrJQn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“La Movilidad A\u00e9rea Avanzada Ayuda al Transporte de Mercanc\u00edas” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5t9rimrJQn\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/cargo_aam.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-60714

Summary Calendar

DONG CHOL KIM,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petitions for Review of Orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A039 772 846

Before KING, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

South Korean native and citizen Dong Chol Kim petitions this court for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluding that he

was removable because his conviction for making a false statement on an income

tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) qualified as an aggravated felony

under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M). Kim concedes

that a § 7206(1) offense may qualify as an aggravated felony for immigration

purposes, but he contends that the Government failed to carry its burden of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 17, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-60714 Document: 00511512330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2011
No. 10-60714

proving that his § 7206(1) offense involved a loss of more than $10,000. Our

review of the record controverts this assertion.

The record contains the indictment and judgment for Kim’s offense, which

establish that the actual loss was $54,232. Because the indictment charged both

Kim and his wife, Kim contends that the government has failed to establish the

amount of the loss that is attributable solely to Kim. However, spouses who file

a joint tax return, such as Kim and his wife, are jointly and severally liable. See

26 U.S.C. § 6013(d)(3); Cheshire v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 282 F.3d 326,

331 (5th Cir. 2002). So the entire amount is attributable to Kim. The

indictment and judgment constitute “reasonable, substantial, and probative

evidence” and show that the Government has established Kim’s removability by

clear and convincing evidence. See Arguelles-Olivares v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 171,

178 (5th Cir. 2008). The petition for review is DENIED.

2

Case: 10-60714 Document: 00511512330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2011
<PAGE>

                          TRICO MARINE SERVICES, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

  The following is a list of all Subsidiaries of Trico Marine Services, Inc.
("the Parent").

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Jurisdiction of
        Company                           Ownership                   Incorporation
        -------                           ---------                 -----------------
<S>                       <C>                                       <C>
Trico Marine Assets,      100% owned by Parent                      Delaware
 Inc.

Trico Marine Operators,   100% owned by Parent                      Louisiana
 Inc.

Trico Marine              100% owned by Parent                      Cayman Islands
 International, Ltd.

Trico Marine              100% owned by Parent                      Netherlands
 International Holdings
 B.V.

Trico Marine              100% owned by Trico Marine Assets, Inc.   Louisiana
 International, Inc.

Trico Supply ASA          100% owned by Trico Marine International  Norway
                          Holdings B.V.

Trico Shipping AS         100% owned by Trico Supply ASA            Norway

Trico Supply (UK)         100% owned by Trico Supply ASA            England and Wales
 Limited

Albyn Marine Limited      100% owned by Trico Supply (UK) Limited   England and Wales

Trico Servicos Maritimos  99.99% owned by Parent and 0.01% owned    Brazil
 Ltda.                    by Trico Marine Operators, Inc.
</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                            EXHIBIT 21.1



             PDS FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


                                              PARENT AND SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                          PERCENTAGE OF
                                                                       VOTING SECURITIES
                                                   ORGANIZED UNDER     BENEFICIALLY OWNED
NAME OF COMPANY                                         LAWS OF           BY REGISTRANT 
----------------                                        -------           -------------
<S>                                                <C>                 <C>
REGISTRANT:
PDS Financial Corporation                               Minnesota

CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT:
PDS Financial Corporation - Nevada                      Nevada                  100
PDS Financial Corporation - Mississippi                 Mississippi             100
PDS Casinos International, Inc.                         Minnesota               100
Transcanada 2 Corporation                               Minnesota               100
PDS Financial Corporation - Colorado                    Colorado                100


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cheryl E. Davies Booth,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04220-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9272 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 1