alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elaine M. MEREDITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, Jonathan R. Davis, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-13779

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 21, 2007.

Edward Randolph Gay, Law Firm of Edward R. Gay, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Erin J. O’Leary, Suzanne D’Agresta, Brown, Garganese, Weiss & D’Agresta, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Elaine M. Meredith filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against appellees School Board of Osceola County, Florida, and Jonathan R. Davis, principal at Cypress Elementary School in Osceola County, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and violation of her constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees, and Meredith then perfected this appeal. We review *de novo*a district court’s grant of summary judgment. *Battle v. Board of Regents for the State of Georgia,*468 F.3d 755, 759 (11th Cir.2006).

On appeal, Meredith challenges only the district court’s entry of summary judgment on her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the appellees violated her First Amendment rights by retaliating against her for her speech. The speech concerns a discussion that Meredith had with another teacher at Cypress Elementary School, where they both taught. After reviewing the record, and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly concluded that Meredith’s speech was not protected speech because her speech did not involve a matter of public concern but constituted mere gossip or rumors. Even if, however, we concluded that Meredith’s speech was protected under the First Amendment, we would still conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees because Meredith’s speech had nothing to do with the decision not to renew her contract. The record evidence demonstrates that Meredith’s contract was not renewed because she had mediocre lesson plans and because she had a negative impact on staff morale at Cypress Elementary School. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the appellees made the non-renewal decision months before Meredith engaged in the conversation with her fellow teacher.

Because we conclude that there is no merit to any of the arguments that Meredith makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1929 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1929

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
  Labor, Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
  Labor, Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 
              FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND ALLOWANCES FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Labor, 
Federal Unemployment Benefits and Allowances for fiscal year 2024 may 
not exceed $540,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                                CERTIFICATIONS OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Annual Report of WebSideStory, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey W.
Lunsford, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

   Date: March 28, 2005

                                          /s/ Jeffrey W. Lunsford
                                          --------------------------------------
                                              Jeffrey W. Lunsford

                                          President, Chief Executive

                                             Officer and Chairman

      In connection with the Annual Report of WebSideStory, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas D.
Willardson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. That information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

   Date: March 28, 2005

                                          /s/ Thomas D. Willardson
                                          --------------------------------------
                                              Thomas D. Willardson

                                             Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jozabet CASTRO-GARZON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4445.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2006.

Decided June 21, 2006.

Robert Christopher Sigler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff— Appellee.

Jozabet Castro-Garzon, Omaha, NE, pro se.

Hugh I. Abrahamson, Omaha, NE, for Defendant — Appellant.

Before BYE, LAY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Jozabet Castro-Garzon guilty of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. At sentencing, the district court1 found Castro-Garzon accountable for fifteen kilograms or more of methamphetamine. It thus sentenced him to 188 months, a five-year term of supervised released, and ordered him to pay a $100 special assessment. CastroGarzon’s sole contention on appeal is the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to jury trial by refusing to have the jury determine the quantity of methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy.

Castro-Garzon’s claim is without merit. Under an advisory guidelines system, the court’s determination of drug quantity for sentencing purposes by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate the Sixth Amendment. *See, e.g., United States v. Tabor,*439 F.3d 826, 830 (8th Cir.2006). Therefore, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1726 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to partner and 

collaborate with the Secretary of Agriculture and the 

State of Hawaii to address Rapid Ohia Death, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1726 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Continued Rapid Ohia 

3 Death Response Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

5 In this Act: 

6 (1) RAPID OHIA DEATH.—The term ‘‘Rapid 

7 Ohia Death’’ means the disease caused by the fungal 

8 pathogen known as Ceratocystis fimbriata that af9 fects the tree of the species Metrosideros 

10 polymorpha. 

11 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State 

12 of Hawaii. 

13 SEC. 3. COLLABORATION. 

14 The Secretary of the Interior shall partner and col15 laborate with the Secretary of Agriculture and the State 

16 to address Rapid Ohia Death. 

17 SEC. 4. SUSTAINED EFFORTS. 

18 (a) TRANSMISSION.—The Secretary of the Interior, 

19 acting through the Director of the United States Geologi20 cal Survey, and the Chief of the Forest Service, acting 

21 through the Forest Service Institute of Pacific Islands 

22 Forestry, shall continue to conduct research on Rapid 

23 Ohia Death vectors and transmission. 

24 (b) UNGULATE MANAGEMENT.—The Secretary of the 

25 Interior, acting through the Director of the United States 

26 Fish and Wildlife Service, shall continue to partner with 
3 

•HR 1726 EH

1 the Secretary of Agriculture, the State, and with local 

2 stakeholders to manage ungulates in Rapid Ohia Death 

3 control areas on Federal, State, and private land, with the 

4 consent of private landowners. 

5 (c) RESTORATION AND RESEARCH.—The Secretary 

6 of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest 

7 Service, shall continue to provide— 

8 (1) financial assistance, including through 

9 agreements with the Secretary of the Interior— 

10 (A) to prevent the spread of Rapid Ohia 

11 Death; and 

12 (B) to restore the native forests of the 

13 State; and 

14 (2) staff and necessary infrastructure funding 

15 to the Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry to con16 duct research on Rapid Ohia Death. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1726 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of the Interior to partner 

Death, and for other purposes. and the State of Hawaii to address Rapid Ohia and collaborate with the Secretary of Agriculture
EXHIBIT #99.1
                                  -------------
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of First  Litchfield  Financial
Corporation,  (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30,
2002, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I, Joseph J. Greco,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/
   -----------------------
   Joseph J. Greco
   Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2002
EXHIBIT 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated April 5, 2006, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of InteliSys Aviation Systems
of America Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statements of InteliSys Aviation Systems of America Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No.
333-63064, effective June 14, 2001, File No. 333-114887, effective April 27,
2004 and File No. 333-125852, effective May 16, 2005).

/s/ SHERB & CO., LLP

Boca Raton, FL  33431
April 5, 2006
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7543
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMMY CHAVIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-95-33) Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sammy Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Kristopher Todd Hagins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Sammy Chavis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel the Government to move for a downward departure. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Chavis , No. CR-95-33 (D.S.C. Mar. 9, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.02

Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 Annual Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Huyett, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Company.

Date: March 19, 2004	By:  /s/ John Huyett	John HuyettChief Financial Officer
 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kana Software, Inc. and will be retained by Kana Software, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
****
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DIANE G. MELECH, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 10-00573-KD-M 

 ) 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ) 

NORTH AMERICA, et al., ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) 

and Amendment of the Court’s April 27, 2012 Discovery Order” and brief in support. (Docs. 134, 

135). Plaintiff requests that: 1) Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”) be 

ordered to produce performance evaluations between October 1, 2007-October 16, 2008 for Lisa 

Koller, Eric Poliziani, and Marianna DiLeo, three (3) employees who were involved in the closure 

of Plaintiff’s claim; and 2) that the Court defer consideration of Defendant LINA’s summary 

judgment motion until it produces this evidence “which is critical to the Court’s consideration of 

whether LINA’s claims decision in this instance was improperly motivated.” (Doc. 134 at 1). 

Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for 

specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer 

considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take 

discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order. FED.R.CIV.P. Rule 56(d). The decision to grant 

or deny a Rule 56(d) motion lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. See, e.g., Burks v. 

Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 212 F.3d 1333, 1336 (11th Cir. 2000)). The discovery issues raised in 

Plaintiff’s motion have already been addressed by this Court -- they have been the subject of a 

Case 1:10-cv-00573-KD-M Document 140 Filed 07/24/12 Page 1 of 2
2 

motion to compel, which Magistrate Judge Milling denied, as well as an Appeal of that ruling, 

which has been affirmed. (Docs. 124, 129, 130, 131, 133). As such, rather than a meritorious Rule 

56(d) request, the motion seeks reconsideration of the Court’s affirmance of the Magistrate Judge’s 

discovery ruling (i.e., to appeal or have reconsidered, the order denying the appeal). Accordingly, it 

is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Docs. 134, 135) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 23rd day of July 2012. 

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DUBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00573-KD-M Document 140 Filed 07/24/12 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-94309) pertaining to the Radio Unica Communications Corp. 1998 Stock
Option Plan, as amended, of our report dated February 22, 2000, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Radio
Unica Communications Corp. included in Radio Unica Communications Corp.'s Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Miami, Florida
March 20, 2000




                                        63
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 **SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 The
undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Medis
Technologies Ltd. (the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 
 Dated:
      March 16, 2005/s/
      ROBERT K. LIFTONRobert
      K. LiftonChairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 /s/
      ISRAEL FISHERIsrael
      FisherSenior
      Vice President and
      Chief
      Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICARDO HECTOR DOMINGUEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-10-00352-CR

Appeal from

 205th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 74534)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ricardo Hector Dominguez attempts to appeal from an order denying his amended motion

for new trial. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

In 1995, Appellant was convicted on his guilty plea of unlawful possession of between four

ounces and five pounds of marijuana, a third-degree felony. In 2009, he filed in the district court a

pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure. Among other things, he contended that the actual weight of the marijuana,

without its wrapper, was less than four ounces; thus, he was guilty only of a misdemeanor rather than

a felony. In connection with his habeas application, Appellant filed a motion for new trial and

amended motion for new trial in the district court. The district court denied the amended motion on

November 23, 2010, and Appellant filed a notice of appeal from that order on December 1, 2010. 

On December 15, 2010, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the habeas application without

written order.

By letter dated January 5, 2011, the clerk of this Court advised Appellant that an order

denying a motion for new trial is not an appealable order. The letter stated that unless Appellant
could show grounds for continuing the appeal within ten days, the appeal would be dismissed

without further notice. Appellant submitted a timely response, stating that his habeas application

raised a meritorious jurisdictional issue, which may be raised at any time. This does not demonstrate

that we have jurisdiction over the appeal. 

As a general rule, we only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant

from a final judgment of conviction. See Ex parte Culver, 932 S.W.2d 207, 210 (Tex.App.--El Paso

1996, pet. ref’d). The denial of a motion for new trial is not an independently appealable order. See

Blue v. State, Nos. 10-08-00316-CR &10-08-00325-CR, 2008WL4427239, at *1 (Tex.App.--Waco

Oct. 1, 2008, no pet.)(not designated for publication); Graves v. State, No. 14-05-00034-CR, 2005

WL 309977, at *1 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 10, 2005, no pet.)(not designated for

publication); Jenkins v. State, No. 12-01-00331-CR, 2001 WL1622260, at *1 (Tex.App.--Tyler Dec.

19, 2001, no pet.)(not designated for publication).

Moreover, Article 11.07 sets forth the exclusive method for challenging a final felony

conviction. See TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2010). “Article 11.07

contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the

Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.]

2001, orig. proceeding).

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

February 28, 2011 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)