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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-31223

Summary Calendar

 

DREY PUJOL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE VENTURES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-619-J

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

November 9, 2001

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Transocean Offshore Ventures, Inc. (“Transocean”), appeals

the district court’s final judgment awarding Drey Pujol $123,993

in damages, plus interest, in his suit brought under the Jones

Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and general maritime law. Transocean

requests a remittitur of the district court’s award of $100,000

in general damages, arguing that the award was unreasonably high. 

Transocean also argues that the district court erred in awarding

$23,112 in past lost wages for a nine-month period in 1999. 

Finally, Transocean argues that the district court erred in
No. 00-31223

-2-

awarding $881 in past medical expenses because Pujol incurred

some of those expenses beyond his date of maximum cure.

A remittitur of the $100,000 award for general damages is

not warranted because the district court’s assessment of damages

was not clearly erroneous and because the award did not exceed

the greatest amount permitted under the maximum recovery rule. 

See Bass v. Phoenix Seadrill/78, Ltd., 749 F.2d 1154, 1169 (5th

Cir. 1985); Caldarera v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 705 F.2d 778,

783, 784 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court likewise did not

err in awarding $23,112 in past lost wages given (1) the court’s

finding that Transocean’s offer of light-duty work would have

disrupted Pujol’s ongoing treatment and physical-therapy regimen

and (2) the court’s reliance on Dr. Paul Doty’s trial testimony

indicating that Pujol was suffering from continuing pain and

disability. See Williams v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co., 750

F.2d 487, 490 (5th Cir. 1985). Finally, the district court did

not err in awarding $881 in past medical expenses because,

although medical expenses recoverable under maintenance and cure

are limited to the point of maximum cure, the district court’s

award was based on Transocean’s negligence and, as such, properly

encompassed all medical expenses. See Fitzgerald v. U.S. Lines

Co., 374 U.S. 16, 19 & n.7 (1963).

AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kathryn Hambleton","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kathrynhambleton\/","title":"NASA\u2019s First Flight With Crew Important Step on Long-term Return to the Moon, Missions to Mars","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"biDxEnhhtH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/nasas-first-flight-with-crew-important-step-on-long-term-return-to-the-moon-missions-to-mars\/\">NASA\u2019s First Flight With Crew Important Step on Long-term Return to the Moon, Missions to Mars<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/nasas-first-flight-with-crew-important-step-on-long-term-return-to-the-moon-missions-to-mars\/embed\/#?secret=biDxEnhhtH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s First Flight With Crew Important Step on Long-term Return to the Moon, Missions to Mars” — NASA\" data-secret=\"biDxEnhhtH\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/KSC-20230106-PH-GEB01_0005\/KSC-20230106-PH-GEB01_0005~large.jpg?w=600&h=1920&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1920}
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated February 1, 2000 (except with respect to Note 1, as to which the
date is February 22, 2000 and Note 5, as to which the date is March 28, 2000)
included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-8 File No. 333-85557, File No. 333-36741, File No.
333-45311 and File No. 333-65907.



                                                /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 2000
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of ITT EducationalServices, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

February 10, 2006
EXHIBIT 32(a)



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 United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America), Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Wayland R. Hicks, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | 1. |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Companies.
| | -- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/S/    WAYLAND R. HICKS                 
|Wayland R. Hicks Chief Executive Officer



August 9, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the
Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10 - 22 - 00299 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.W. AND L.W., CHILDREN

From the 272nd District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 21 - 000066 - CV
- 272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Elizabeth appeals from an order that terminated the parent

- child relationship
between her and her child ren, J.W. and L.W. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN . § § 161.001 , 161.003

. Elizabeth 's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting
that the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). The procedures set forth in Anders are applicable to appeals of orders terminating parental rights. In re E.L.Y. , 69 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2002, order). Counsel advised Elizabeth that counsel had filed the brief pursuant to Anders and that Elizabeth had the right to review the record and file a pro se response on her own behalf. Counsel also informed Elizabeth that she could requestIn the Interest of J.W. and L.W., Children Page 2 access to the record by contacting the Court

. Elizabeth did not request the record or file a response with this Court.
Counsel included a detailed recitation of the facts in the Anders brief and asserted
that counsel reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues and determined
there is no non

- frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief discusses the sufficiency of the evidence relating to Section 161.001(b)(1) ( D ) and (E) 1 and Section
161.003 as well as the best interest of the child ren . Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 74 4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406

- 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Upon the filing of the Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining
that a n appeal is frivolous. See In the Interest of G.P. , 503 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2016, pet. denied). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See In re D.D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. App.

— Dallas

1 An Anders brief must include a review of Section 161.001(b)(1)(D) or (E) if the termination was granted on either or both of those subsections pursuant to In re N.G. , 577 S.W.3d 230, 235

- 36 (Tex. 2019).In the Interest of J.W. and L.W., Children Page 3 2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's or der of termination.
C ONCLUSION Having found no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed November 30, 2022 CV 06
#### E. C. Roach *v.*T. H. Scott.

Judgment — Rendered on Allegations in Petition.

A judgment can only be rendered in accordance with the allegations of a petition, which must control the prayer.

Same.

Where there is a variance betweent the allegations and. the prayer In a petition, a judgment should be for the amount shown by the allegations.

Interest — When Allowed by The Court.

In a suit for recovery of amount due for sale of a consignment of tobacco, interest should be allowed on the account, from the time it should have been paid, and not from the data of filing the suit.

APPEAL FROM HICKMAN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 15, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

Scott sued Mrs. Poindexter, E. A. Roach and Daniel Gould as partners trading under the style of Poindexter & Co., for money had and received to his use as the proceeds of three hogsheads of tobacco of 1500 lbs. each, shipped to them -at New Orleans, and sold by them in the year of 1861, averring

> “that the sales of said three hogsheads amounted to at least *$200,*and that the defendants have accounted to him for the proceeds of the sale of only two of the said three *91hogsheads of tobacco equal to *$150,*and that the remainder say *$500*and interest remains unpaid.”

*Craddock & Trabue, for appellant.*

Process being served on Poach only, a judgment by default was taken against him for five hundred dollars, with interest from October 13, 1866, which he seeks to reverse.

There being no motion for a new trial, nor bill of exception containing the evidence, if any was heard, the judgment must be tested on the validity of the petition.

The averment is that the tobacco sold for two hundred dollars, and that only one hundred and fifty dollars had been paid over, therefore, it shows only fifty dollars remained to be paid and this must control the prayer of the petition,, though a judgment for five hundred dolars was asked.

It may be possible that as the amount for which the tobacco was averred to be sold was put down in figures it was intended to aver it sold for two thousand 'dollars, instead of two hundred, and as the credit was likewise set out in numerals, it may have been intended for- fifteen hundred, instead of one hundred and fifty dollars, but there is nothing in this record to justify a judicial determination of any such mistake. It was therefore eroneous to adjudge by default five hundred dollars upon the allegations of this petition.

The averment is that this tobacco was shipped and sold in the year of 1861, hence as matter of law interest should be allowed on the money not paid over from the time it should have been so paid, and not from the date of filing the suit, as was decided by this court in *Field v. Burnam, 3 Bush, 518.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed for further proceedings consistent herewith.
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE CRIMINAL DIST RICT COURT NO. 3 OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREET INGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 21st day of April, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined;
and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Travis Shane Brown, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00233

- CR

Trial Court No. F

- 1418343

- J

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Travis Shane Brown, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Cou rt of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 19th day of June , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
[MULTIPLIER]1000
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-1996
[PERIOD-END]                               SEP-30-1996
[CASH]                                            2306
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                    66468
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                      36367
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                 13949
[PP&E]                                           21867
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                  140957
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                            62157
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                           109
[OTHER-SE]                                       71606
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                    140957
[SALES]                                         249508
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                249508
[CGS]                                           172690
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                   229300
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                   591
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                               (678)
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                  20121
[INCOME-TAX]                                      7992
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                              12129
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                     12129
[EPS-PRIMARY]                                     1.15
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In Re: BARD IVC FILTERS MDL No. 2:15-MD-02641-PHX-DGC

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

_____________________________________

This Document Relates to:

JAMES HEADLEY AND PAMELA HEADLEY Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-02877-DGC

Plaintiff

v.

C.R. BARD, INC., and

BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC.

Defendants

______________________________________

[PROPOSED] ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that all claims of Plaintiffs 

James and Pamela Headley against Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, 

Inc. in Civil Action No. MDL No. 2641 (Member Case 2:17-cv-02877) are dismissed and in 

their entirety without prejudice as to the refiling of same, and each party shall bear its own costs. 

Dated this _______________ day of ____________, 2018.

______________________________

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9647-1 Filed 01/15/18 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-86880, 33-86892, 33-93340, 333-3192, 333-48069,
and 333-48073) of our report dated February 28, 2001 relating to the financial
statements, which appears in the 2000 Annual Report to Shareholders of Virbac
Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000. We also consent
to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 28, 2001 relating
to the financial statement schedules, which appears in such Annual Report on
Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
March 20, 2001
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

5/28/2015 COA No. 02-14-00126-CR

ISBELL, JOHN B. Tr. Ct. No. 1290851D PD-0471-15

The State’s Petition for Discretionary Review has this day been filed. [The Court

requires ten copies of this document to be filed in this office within three (3) days

pursuant to Rule 9.3(b). Failure to send copies will result in the refusal of the

petition.]

Abel Acosta, Clerk

BARRY G. JOHNSON

2821 E. LANCASTER

FT WORTH, TX 76103

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

FILE COPY
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

5/28/2015 COA No. 02-14-00126-CR

ISBELL, JOHN B. Tr. Ct. No. 1290851D PD-0471-15

The State’s Petition for Discretionary Review has this day been filed. [The Court

requires ten copies of this document to be filed in this office within three (3) days

pursuant to Rule 9.3(b). Failure to send copies will result in the refusal of the

petition.]

Abel Acosta, Clerk

C. JAMES GIBSON

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

401 W. BELKNAP

FORT WORTH, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

FILE COPY
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

5/28/2015 COA No. 02-14-00126-CR

ISBELL, JOHN B. Tr. Ct. No. 1290851D PD-0471-15

The State’s Petition for Discretionary Review has this day been filed. [The Court

requires ten copies of this document to be filed in this office within three (3) days

pursuant to Rule 9.3(b). Failure to send copies will result in the refusal of the

petition.]

Abel Acosta, Clerk

2ND COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

DEBRA SPISAK

401 W. BELKNAP, STE 9000

FORT WORTH, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

FILE COPY
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

5/28/2015 COA No. 02-14-00126-CR

ISBELL, JOHN B. Tr. Ct. No. 1290851D PD-0471-15

The State’s Petition for Discretionary Review has this day been filed. [The Court

requires ten copies of this document to be filed in this office within three (3) days

pursuant to Rule 9.3(b). Failure to send copies will result in the refusal of the

petition.]

Abel Acosta, Clerk

LISA MCMINN

STATE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

P.O. BOX 13046

AUSTIN, TX 78711

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

FILE COPY
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40495

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Marquett Cains Dorsey, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-131-9

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Marquett Cains Dorsey 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). Dorsey has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 9, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40495 Document: 00515932351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
No. 20-40495

2

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

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

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: 20-40495 Document: 00515932351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Greg J. Kramer,

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-17-03478-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: October 26, 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 8462 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 1