alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10076 Summary Calendar

**Hannah Logan; Henry O. Logan,**
Plaintiffs

— Appellants **,**

versus
**Jerome Hennigan,** 324 Family Law Judge **,** Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- CV

- 749

Before **Higginbotham, Graves,**  and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Hannah and Henry Logan appeal the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging civil rights violations and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act against Judge Jerome Hennigan, the presiding judge of the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 22-10076 Document: 00516497165 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2022No. 22

- 10076

2 324th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. The Logans’ appellate brief does not meaningfully address the basis for the district court’s dismissal. While pro se briefs are liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them, Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224

- 25 (5th Cir. 1993). The Logans’ failure to address the basis for the district court’s dismissal , “without even the slightest identification of any error in [the court’s] legal analysis or its application to [ their ] suit . . . is the same as if [t he y] had not appealed that judgment.” Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court judgment is **AFFIRMED** . The Logans’ pending motions for appoin tment of counsel, for summary judgment, to expedite the appeal, and for exemption of PACER fees are **DENIED**

. S ee Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212

- 13 (5th Cir. 1982)

. Case: 22-10076 Document: 00516497165 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2022
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

N

elson 

M

ullins Riley 

&

Scar

borough L.L.P.

201 17t h Street NW, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30363 

(404) 322-6000 

James R. Condo (#005867)

Amanda C. Sheridan (#027360) 

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.

One Arizona Center 

400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 

Telephone: 602.382.6000 

Facsimile: 602.382.6070 

jcondo@swlaw.com 

asheridan@swlaw.com 

Richard B. North, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) 

Georgia Bar No. 545599 

Matthew B. Lerner (admitted pro hac vice) 

Georgia Bar No. 446986 

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 

201 17th Street, NW / Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30363 

Telephone: (404) 322-6000 

Telephone: (602) 382-6000 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

matthew.lerner@nelsonmullins.com 

Attorneys for Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products Liability 

Litigation, 

No. 2:15-MD-02641-DGC

NOTICE OF NEW EVIDENCE 

REGARDING FDA CLEARANCE 

COMES NOW the defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

(“Bard”) and hereby give notice that, on February 18, 2016, the United States Food and 

Drug and Administration (“FDA”) issued a letter providing 510(k) clearance for the 

Recovery Cone. A copy of that letter is attached. The clearance of this device ensures 

that physicians and patients will continue to have uninterrupted access to the Recovery 

Cone for the retrieval of Bard’s filters, as they have in the past. (See Dkt. No. 693, 

page 11). 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 850 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 2
-2-

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

N

elson 

M

ullins Riley 

&

Scar

borough L.L.P.

201 17t h Street NW, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30363 

(404) 322-6000 

DATED this 18th day of February, 2016. 

NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 

By: s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Richard B. North, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

Georgia Bar No. 545599 

Matthew B. Lerner (admitted pro hac vice)

Georgia Bar No. 446986 

201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30363 

James R. Condo 

Amanda C. Sheridan 

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. 

One Arizona Center 

400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 

Attorneys for C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard 

Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 18, 2016, the foregoing was electronically filed 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send e-mail 

notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. 

 s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Richard B. North, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

Georgia Bar No. 545599 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 

201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30363 

Attorneys for C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard 

Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 850 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3013320-SEP-201107:49 AM
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 656

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that distributions

from qualified State tuition programs which are used to pay educational

expenses shall not be includible in gross income and to include as such

expenses the cost of room and board.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1997

Mr. BACHUS (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. RILEY,

Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. MICA, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. MCCOLLUM, and Mr.

LATOURETTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that distributions from qualified State tuition programs

which are used to pay educational expenses shall not

be includible in gross income and to include as such

expenses the cost of room and board.

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATIONS OF TAX TREATMENT OF

4 QUALIFIED STATE TUITION PROGRAMS.

5 (a) EXCLUSION OF DISTRIBUTIONS USED FOR EDU6 CATIONAL PURPOSES.—Subparagraph (B) of section
2

•HR 656 IH

1 529(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend2 ed to read as follows:

3 ‘‘(B) DISTRIBUTIONS FOR QUALIFIED

4 HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES.—Subpara5 graph (A) shall not apply to any distribution to

6 the extent—

7 ‘‘(i) the distribution is used exclusively

8 to pay qualified higher education expenses

9 of the distributee, or

10 ‘‘(ii) the distribution consists of pro11 viding a benefit to the distributee which, if

12 paid for by the distributee, would con13 stitute payment of a qualified higher edu14 cation expense.’’

15 (b) QUALIFIED HIGHER EDUCATION EXPENSES TO

16 INCLUDE ROOM AND BOARD.—Section 529(e)(3) of such

17 Code is amended to read as follows:

18 ‘‘(3) QUALIFIED HIGHER EDUCATION EX19 PENSES.—The term ‘qualified higher education ex20 penses’ means the cost of attendance (within the

21 meaning of section 472 of the Higher Education Act

22 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll), as in effect on the date

23 of the enactment of this paragraph) of a designated

24 beneficiary at an eligible educational institution (as

25 defined in section 135(c)(3)).’’
3

•HR 656 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 December 31, 1996.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                 H. R. 55

 To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 
 relating to the dumping of dredged material in Long Island Sound, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 
 relating to the dumping of dredged material in Long Island Sound, 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 ``Long Island Sound Preservation and 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. DUMPING OF DREDGED MATERIALS IN LONG ISLAND SOUND.

    Section 106(f) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 
Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1416(f)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(f) Dumping of Dredged Material in Long Island Sound.--
            ``(1) In general.--No dredged material from any Federal 
        project, or from any non-Federal project, that contains any of 
        the constituents prohibited as other than trace contaminants 
        (as defined by the Federal ocean dumping criteria set forth in 
        section 227.6 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations) 
        may be dumped in Long Island Sound or Block Island Sound, 
        except in cases in which it is demonstrated to the 
        Administrator, and the Administrator certifies by publication 
        in the Federal Register, that the dumping of the dredged 
        material containing such constituents will not cause 
        significant undesirable effects, including the threat 
        associated with bioaccumulation of such constituents in marine 
        organisms.
            ``(2) Federal projects exceeding 25,000 yards.--In addition 
        to other provisions of law and notwithstanding the specific 
        exclusion relating to dredged material in the first sentence in 
        section 102(a), any dumping of dredged material in Long Island 
        Sound from a Federal project (or pursuant to Federal 
        authorization) by a non-Federal applicant exceeding 25,000 
        cubic yards shall comply with the criteria established pursuant 
        to the second sentence of section 102(a) relating to the 
        effects of dumping.
            ``(3) Relation to other law.--Subsection (d) shall not 
        apply to this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                         TO AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.
                          2001 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

The second paragraph of Section 13 of the AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. 2001 Long
Term Incentive Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:

            The Board or the Committee may amend, alter, suspend, discontinue or
      terminate the Plan or any portion thereof at any time; provided, however,
      that no such amendment, alteration, suspension, discontinuation or
      termination shall be made without (a) stockholder approval if such
      approval is necessary to qualify for or comply with any tax or regulatory
      requirement for which or with which the Board deems it necessary or
      desirable to qualify or comply or (b) the consent of the affected
      Participant, if such action would impair the rights of such Participant
      under any outstanding Award. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
      herein, (x) the Board or the Committee may amend the Plan in such manner
      as may be necessary so as to have the Plan conform to local rules and
      regulations in any jurisdiction outside the United States and (y) the
      Committee may not amend Section 4 to increase the number of Shares
      available for issuance under the Plan.

                                     * * *
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT I, Michael S. Lipscomb, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argo-Tech Corporation;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 are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  a)
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 function):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: March 14, 2005By: /s/
    
    Michael S. LipscombMichael S. LipscombChairman, President and CEO
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-113","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YTRJ3Rg7kL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-113\/\">STS-113<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-113\/embed\/#?secret=YTRJ3Rg7kL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-113” — NASA\" data-secret=\"YTRJ3Rg7kL\" 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\/STS113-S-002\/STS113-S-002~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
#### Joseph Booth *v.*M. *V.*Gudgel.

Judgment — Verdict not Sustained by the Weight of Evidence — Instructions as to Loss.

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 23, 1870.

*Lindsey, for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

Although, in our judgment, the verdict of the jury is not sustained by the weight of the evidence, still the preponderance is not so palpably and decidedly against the verdict as to authorize this court to interfere and set it aside. The evidence is somewhat conflicting.

The only instruction given for appellee points out specifically what facts must exist, or in what his delinquency must have consisted, to render appellant responsible for the loss. One or the other of which must have existed, and if the loss resulted from any other cause he was not responsible. This, we think, is a correct exposition of the law.

The instruction asked by appellant and refused by the court, being *“No. 3”*left out of yiew altogether, or excluded from the consideration of the jury whether the change of position of the team after it was in the boat was made by the direction of the ferryman, as to which there was some proof, and consequently the instruction was properly refused.

Perceiving, therefore, no error available for reversal, the judgment must be *affimed.*
**Exhibit 99.1**
| **Capital One Master Trust Aggregated Data for 2006**                                             | ** ** | ** ** | ** **        |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------|-------------------|
| ** **                                                                                        | ** ** | ** ** | ** **        |
| Aggregate Data for year  ended December 31, 2006                                                  |       |       |              |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Defaults                                                                                          |       | $          | 1,910,335,069.27  |   |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Total Collections                                                                                 |       | $          | 88,276,386,500.17 |   |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Collections of Principal  Receivables                                                             |       | $          | 79,852,286,373.23 |   |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Collection of Finance  Charge Receivables (includes amortization of annual membership fees)       |       | $          | 8,483,036,502.59  |   |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Annual Servicing Fee  Paid by each publicly registered series                                     |       | $          | 165,681,915.12    |   |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Aggregate amount paid  to Certificateholders of publicly registered series allocable to principal |       | $          | 4,450,000,000.00  |   |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Class A Investor  Charge-Offs                                                                     |       | $          | 0.00              |   |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Class B Investor  Charge-Offs                                                                     |       | $          | 0.00              |   |
|                                                                                              |       |       |              |
| Class C Investor  Charge-Offs                                                                     |       | $          | 0.00              |   |

 

 

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"LaToya Dean","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/latoya-d-deannasa-gov\/","title":"MEDIA ADVISORY: NASA Invites Media to Milestone RS-25 Engine Certification Test","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MjwyEi1diB\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/media-advisory-s24-015\/\">MEDIA ADVISORY: NASA Invites Media to Milestone RS-25 Engine Certification Test<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/media-advisory-s24-015\/embed\/#?secret=MjwyEi1diB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“MEDIA ADVISORY: NASA Invites Media to Milestone RS-25 Engine Certification Test” — NASA\" data-secret=\"MjwyEi1diB\" 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\/2019\/04\/fred-haise-test-stand-ssc-2014-00261h.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}