alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CLARISSA L. PHALO, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0294-C

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, :

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this date, it 

is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff benefits be affirmed. 

DONE this the 15th day of April, 2016.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00294-C Document 15 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                          13,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,838
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (65)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,881
<PP&E>                                          30,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,806)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,494
<BONDS>                                        101,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                    (51,898)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,851
<SALES>                                         14,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,280
<CGS>                                            9,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    25
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    293
<INCOME-TAX>                                       114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                179
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       179
<EPS-BASIC>                                      1.321
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.321


</TABLE>
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-4083

Lower Tribunal No. 2023SC000265

_____________________________

DENNIS LONG,

Appellant, 

v.

BRANDY ROWE,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the County Court for Hardee County.

David N. Horton, Judge.

August 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WHITE and SMITH, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur.

Dennis Long, Jacksonville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessica Schwieterman, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                    FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PENSION PARTNERS, L.P.

                         STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                          INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                For the Three Months            For the Six Months
                                                   Ended June 30,                 Ended June 30,
                                             --------------------------      -------------------------
                                                1999           1998            1999            1998
                                             ---------      -----------      --------       ----------
<S>                                          <C>            <C>              <C>            <C>
Net Investment (Loss) Income                 $ (15,193)     $    43,463      $(53,527)      $   57,928

Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners            98%              99%           93%              99%
                                             ---------      -----------      --------       ----------

Net Investment (Loss) Income Allocable
   to Limited Partners                       $  14,889      $    43,029      $(49,780)      $   57,349
                                             =========      ===========      ========       ==========

Weighted Average Number of Limited
   Partnership Units Outstanding               940,336        1,020,142       940,336        1,020,142
                                             =========      ===========      ========       ==========

Net Investment (Loss) Income Per Limited
   Partnership Unit                          $    (.01)     $       .04      $   (.05)      $      .06
                                             =========      ===========      ========       ==========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

               Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Changes

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                  Successor    Predecessor
                                                                                   Period         Period
                                                                                  April 1 to   January 1 to   Predecessor Year
                                         Successor Year Ended December 31,       December 31,    March 31,   Ended December 31,
                                         --------------------------------        ------------  ------------  ------------------
                                           1999        1998         1997             1996          1996            1995
                                         -------      -------      ------           ------        ------          ------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>          <C>              <C>           <C>             <C>
Fixed charges:
     Interest expense, net of
       capitalized interest              $16,856      $ 5,733      $2,413           $1,486        $    -          $  135
     Capitalized interest                      -            -           -                -             -               -
     Portion of rent expense
        representative of interest (1)     3,962        1,879       1,122              662           215             843
                                         -------      -------      ------           ------        ------          ------

Total fixed charges                       20,818        7,612       3,535            2,148           215             978

Earnings (loss):
     Income (loss) before income
        taxes                              1,833        4,821       2,702            1,223           757             826
     Fixed charges, less
        capitalized interest              20,818        7,612       3,535            2,148           215             978
                                         -------      -------      ------           ------        ------          ------

Earnings (losses) adjusted for
   fixed charges                          22,651       12,433       6,237            3,371           972           1,804

Ratio of earnings (losses) to
   fixed charges                           1.09x        1.63x      1.76xx            1.57x         4.52x           1.84x

Deficiency of earnings to cover                -            -           -                -             -               -
   fixed charges

</TABLE>
#### Rosalia RESENDIZ-DOMINGUEZ, aka Rosalia Sibriano, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73554.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.

District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of a second motion to reopen of a previous denial of an application for cancellation of removal. We review this decision for an abuse of discretion. *See Ray v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 582 (9th Cir.2006) (cit*965ing *Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2004)).

We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because the motion is barred by the numerical limitations governing motions to reopen. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); *Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004). Furthermore, petitioner’s motion to reopen has not alleged that her motion is subject to any of the exceptions to the numerical limitations set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted in part because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).

To the extent petitioner challenges the BIA’s refusal to *sua sponte*reopen her removal proceedings, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening of petitioner’s case. *See*8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a); *Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002). We therefore dismiss this petition in part.

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELLY THOMAS, )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION: 15-00051-KD-N

 ) 

EIGHT MILE NURSING & REHAB )

CENTER LLC, et al. )

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised and a de novo determination of 

those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated April 

2, 2015, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. 7) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Doc. 8) is 

GRANTED such that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, 

Alabama, from whence it came.

DONE and ORDERED this the 20th day of April 2015.

/s/Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00051-KD-N Document 22 Filed 04/20/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2084 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2084

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, 
   Court of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judiciary Services, 
                Defender Services 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 the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, 
   Court of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judiciary Services, 
                Defender Services 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 THE JUDICIARY, COURT 
              OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIARY 
              SERVICES, DEFENDER SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

     Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for The Judiciary, Court of 
Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judiciary Services, Defender 
Services for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,150,450,000.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18.U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

       The undersignedofficer of FieldPoint Petroleum Corporation (the "Company") herebycertifies that:

|   | i.
the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the      Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
ii.
the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of the Company.
/s/ Ray Reaves                              Ray ReavesChief Executive Officer andChief Financial OfficerMay 19, 2005 |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


                                  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 Annual Report of American Oriental
Bioengineering, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on the
date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their 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.       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

         A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the SEC or
its staff upon request.



/s/ Yanchun Li
--------------------------------------
Name: Yanchun Li
Title:  Acting Chief Financial Officer
April 4, 2005



This Certification of Acting Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This exhibit is not "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as
provided by applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, as President and Chief Executive Officer of BTU International, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2010 (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 results of operations of the Company for the periods
covered by the Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul J. van der WansemPaul J. van der WansemPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (principal executive officer)


Dated: August 5, 2010
11834.

#### Jones *v.*Crawford.

Decided April 14, 1921.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. June 28, 1920.

*8. C. Crane, J. L. Moore,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. R. Jaclcson,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

Where, in a proceeding under a dispossessory warrant, the defendant has made the counter-affidavit and given the bond required by law, and a suit for a general judgment against him and his bondsmen thus becomes pending, the plaintiff is entitled to the cumulative remedy of garnishment as provided by the code. Furthermore, any proper proceeding to dismiss or dissolve a garnishment must be taken in the court where the suit is pending; and consequently the superior court did not have original jurisdiction, on a petition to dismiss or' dissolve the garnishment, to interfere with such a proceeding, which had been instituted in the court where the suit was tried, .even though the writ of certiorari had been granted from the proceedings on the suit; since the granting of such a writ does not operate to transfer the entire case from the inferior to the superior court. *Loeb*v. Mangum, 134 *Ga.*335, 337 (67 S. E. 882) ; *Miller*v. *Gay,*98 *Ga.*536 (25 S. E. 577). Were the plaintiff attempting to proceed with the enforcement of the judgment obtained in the trial court, pending the determination of the certiorari, in such a way as to violate the supersedeas resulting from its issuance, the rule would be otherwise. *Herrington*v. *Block,*98 *Ga.*236 (25 S. E. 426).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens cmd Hill, JJ., concur.*
NUMBER 13-15-00555-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE C.D.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, C.D., seeks a petition for writ of mandamus directing the trial court to 

transfer the underlying proceedings involving a suit affecting the parent-child relationship 

and for the dissolution of a marriage to Tarrant County, Texas.2 

“Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no 

adequate remedy by appeal.” In re Frank Motor Co., 361 S.W.3d 628, 630 (Tex. 2012) 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

2 Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus under the style “In the Interest of K.P., Minor Child,” 

however, we have corrected the style of this original proceeding in order to comply with the appellate rules. 

See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1. 
2

(orig. proceeding); see In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex. 2010) 

(orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) 

(orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable 

that it amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or if it clearly fails to correctly analyze 

or apply the law. In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d at 888; Walker, 827 S.W.2d 

at 840. In determining whether appeal is an adequate remedy, we consider whether the 

benefits outweigh the detriments of mandamus review. In re BP Prods. N. Am., Inc., 244 

S.W.3d 840, 845 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d at 

135–36. However, “[a]n erroneous denial of a mandatory venue transfer is subject to 

mandamus relief without a showing of an inadequate remedy by appeal.” In re LovellOsburn, 448 S.W.3d 616, 618-19 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, orig. 

proceeding); In re Compton, 185 S.W.3d 526, 527 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, 

orig. proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus 

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain 

mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; see, e.g., 

Anderson v. Anderson, 282 S.W.3d 150, 155 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.); Chavez 

v. Chavez, 269 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); Lindsey v. Lindsey, 

564 S.W.2d 143, 145 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1978, no writ). Accordingly, the petition for 

writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

25th day of November, 2015.
TABLE
TRAC, INC. CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL
 OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350)
  In
connection with the accompanying annual Report on Form 10-K of Table Trac Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge,
that:
  (1) the
annual Report on Form 10-K of Table Trac Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2009 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 annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Table Trac Inc.
  March 31,
2010
  Table
Trac, Inc.
  /s/ Chad
B. Hoehne
 
 Chad B.
Hoehne, Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer




TABLE TRAC,
INC.




# #
#