alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bohdan SENYSZYN, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY, Respondent.

No. 2007-3297.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2007.

Bohdan Senyszyn, pro se.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*ORDER*

The Department *of the*Treasury moves the court to summarily affirm the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in *Senyszyn v. Department of Treasury,*PH-0752-05-0403-C-2, 106 M.S.P.R. 249 (June 7, 2007). Bohdan Senyszyn opposes and moves to “reopen” a previous petition for review. The Department replies.

The Department indefinitely suspended Senyszyn after he was arrested and charged with defrauding the United States in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(5). The Department informed Senyszyn that he was suspended until the “completion of investigation or resolution of the criminal charges” against him. Senyszyn appealed his suspension to the Board and eventually to this court. We affirmed the Board’s decision, upholding the Department’s imposition of an indefinite suspension. *Senyszyn v. Department of Treasury,*200 Fed.Appx. 990 (Fed.Cir.2006).

Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted Senyszyn on seven counts, including four counts of “False Returns By An IRS Agent,” in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(7). Senyszyn filed a petition for enforcement with the Board, arguing that the Department improperly failed to terminate his suspension when he was not indicted for violating 26 U.S.C. § 7214(a)(5). The Board disagreed, finding that although Senyszyn was not indicted under § 7214(a)(5), the investigation or resolution of the criminal charges against Senyszyn related to his alleged fraud were ongoing and the suspension remained in effect. We affirmed. *Senyszyn v. Depar*
      *272
      *tment of Treasury,*244 Fed.Appx. 347, 347-48 (Fed.Cir.2007).

Senyszyn filed another petition for enforcement with the Board. The Board denied that petition as before, finding that the criminal case against Senyszyn was still ongoing. Senyszyn now petitions this court for review of that disposition.

Summary affirmance of a case is appropriate “when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists”. *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir. 1994). We conclude that no substantial question exists regarding the outcome of this petition for review and that summary affirmance is appropriate.

Senyszyn’s motion to reopen his petition for review decided by this court in 2006 is denied. The mandate in that case issued long ago.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Department’s motion is granted and the Board’s decision is summarily affirmed.

(2) Senyszyn’s motion is denied.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

July 28, 2010

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 08-3219 ]

]

DEBORAH A. KENSETH, ] 

]

Plaintiff-Appellant, ]

]

v. ]

]

DEAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., ]

]

Defendant-Appellee. ]

ORDER

The slip opinion of this court issued on June 28, 2010, and amended by order

dated June 29, 2010, is further amended as follows:

On page fifteen, line 6, “equitably estopped” shall be substituted for

“collaterally estopped.”

On page 17, “Equitable Estoppel” shall be substituted for “Collateral

Estoppel” as the heading for subsection A, and “equitable estoppel” shall be

substituted for “collateral estoppel” in the first line following that heading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Western District

of Wisconsin.

No. 08 C 1

Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.
KERR, HENDERSHOT & CANNON, P.C. 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

1800 BERING DRIVE, STE. 600

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77057

CHRISTY L. MARTIN TELEPHONE (713) 783-3110 

FAX: (713) 783-2809

January 9, 2015 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

Liz Talerico, Deputy Clerk 

Court of Appeals 

Third District of Texas at Austin 

Austin, Texas 78711-2547 

 Re: Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00593-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 14-0486-C26 

Comed Medical Systems Co., Ltd., d/b/a GEMSS Medical and GEMSS North America, Inc., 

f/k/a GEMSS USA, Inc. v. AADCO Imaging, LLC and AADCO Medical, Inc.

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

This is to acknowledge your letter dated January 5, 2015 setting this case for submission 

on January 28, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Christy L. Martin will present oral argument for the Appellants, 

Comed Medical Systems Co., Ltd. and GEMSS North America, Inc. 

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. 

 Respectfully, 

 /s/ Christy L. Martin 

Christy L. Martin 

SBN: 24041336 

cmartin@k-hpc.com

Simon W. Hendershot, III 

SBN: 09417200 

trey@k-hpc.com

Kerr, Hendershot & Cannon, P.C. 

1800 Bering Drive, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77057 

Telephone: (713) 783-3110 

Facsimile: (713) 783-2809 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS 

SWH/clm 

cc: David N. Cole, Esq. - Via email dcole@colelaw.com 

Kenneth J. Ferguson - Via email RKeeton@mcguirewoods.com

ACCEPTED

03-14-00593-CV

3710898

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/9/2015 11:24:29 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/9/2015 11:24:29 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 NANCY LEWIS,

8 Plaintiff-Appellant,

9 v. NO. 31,210

10 TOM SHARPE and THE 

11 SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN,

12 Defendants-Appellees.

13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

14 Raymond Z. Ortiz, District Judge

15 Nancy Lewis

16 Santa Fe, NM 

17 Pro Se Appellant

18 Victor R. Marshall

19 Albuquerque, NM 

20 for Appellee

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION

22 VANZI, Judge.

23 Plaintiff is appealing, pro se, from a district court judgment entered after a

24 bench trial on her complaint for invasion of privacy and false light. We issued a
2

1 calendar notice proposing to affirm. Plaintiff has responded with a timely

2 memorandum in opposition. We affirm.

3 Plaintiff continues to claim that the evidence supported her complaint for

4 invasion of privacy and false light. See generally McNutt v. N.M. State Tribune Co.,

5 88 N.M. 162, 165, 538 P.2d 804, 807 (Ct. App. 1975) (recognizing tort of invasion of

6 privacy). The tort of invasion privacy is broken down into four categories: false light,

7 intrusion, publication of private facts, and appropriation. See Moore v. Sun Publ’g

8 Corp., 118 N.M. 375, 383, 881 P.2d 735, 743 (Ct. App. 1994). In this case, the

9 district court, sitting as factfinder in the bench trial, entered a number of findings both

10 as to the substantive facts and the credibility of the parties and reportage. [RP 201]

11 Most importantly, the district court found that the reportage was substantially true and

12 that Defendants acted with due care and without negligence. [RP 201] Although

13 Plaintiff disputes the court’s findings and credibility determinations, our standard of

14 review compels us to defer to the court’s findings because the record indicates that

15 these matters were in dispute and substantial evidence supported the court’s

16 reconciliation of the disputed facts. See Lopez v. Adams, 116 N.M. 757, 758, 867 P.2d

17 427, 428 (Ct. App. 1993) (“It is for the trial court to weigh the testimony, determine

18 the credibility of witnesses, reconcile inconsistent statements, and determine where

19 the truth lies.”). In light of our standard of review, we affirm the judgment.
3

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 __________________________________

3 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

4 WE CONCUR:

5 _________________________________

6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

7 _________________________________

8 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1469

NDEYE MAME GUINDO,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A72-001-315)

Submitted: December 15, 2006 Decided: February 1, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kell Enow, LAW OFFICES OF ENOW & PATCHA, Silver Spring, Maryland,

for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.

Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kathryn L. Moore, Office

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ndeye Mame Guindo, a native and citizen of Senegal,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen immigration

proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and

find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); INS v. Doherty,

502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Guindo, No.

A72-001-315 (B.I.A. Mar. 22, 2006). 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           STATMON TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             19 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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of 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) The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

       /s/ GEOFFREY P. TALBOT
-------------------------------------------
           GEOFFREY P. TALBOT
        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          SEPTEMBER 24, 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 Statmon  Technologies  Corp.  and
will be retained by Statmon  Technologies  Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Sheri Lue Willhite, Appellant

No. 06

- 18

- 00157

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 27740 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice

Morriss and Justice Moseley* participating. *Justice Moseley, Retired, Sitting by Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the judgment by (1) chang ing the “Degree of Offense”

to a state jail felony and by (2) chang ing the enhancing statute from Section 12.42 to Section

1 2.425 and (3) deleting court costs of $349.00 to eliminate duplicative costs

. As modified, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Sheri Lue Willhite, has adequately indicated h er inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 2 2 , 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### In the Matter of Wenona C. Hauser, Appellant, v Antonio F. Pruitt, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 909]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 for a writ of habeas corpus, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Christopher, J.), dated September 21, 2005, which, upon consent, inter alia, awarded sole legal custody of the children to the father.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal must be dismissed because the mother is not aggrieved by the order of custody entered upon her consent *(see Matter of Jonathan G.,*278 AD2d 324, 325 [2000]; *Lewis v Lewis,*269 AD2d 429 [2000]). To the extent that the mother argues that her consent was not valid, her remedy is to seek vacatur of the order *(see Matter of Polyak v Toyber,*2 AD3d 642, 643 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Miller, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WALTER JULIOUS 

PORTERFIELD, 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 16-00018-CG-M 

) 

GROVER SMITH, et al., ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

JUDGEMENT 

 In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

 DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of September, 2016. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:16-cv-00018-CG-M Document 41 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Jose Rivera, Appellant, v Lucien J. Leclaire, Jr., as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Decided February 12, 2009

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question *(see*CPLR 5601).

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 03-1383

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellant,

v.

BRADFORD C. COUNCILMAN,

Defendant, Appellee.

Before

Boudin, Chief Judge,

Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,

Torruella, Selya, Lynch, Lipez and Howard Circuit Judges.

Order of Court

Entered: October 5, 2004

A majority of the judges of this court in active service have

voted to rehear this matter en banc. Thus, the petition for

rehearing en banc is granted, and the petition for panel rehearing

is denied as moot. In accordance with customary practice, the

panel opinion and dissent released on June 29, 2004 are withdrawn,

and the judgment entered June 29, 2004 is vacated. 

The parties shall simultaneously submit within 30 days of the

date of this order supplemental briefs not exceeding 30 pages per

side. In preparing these briefs, counsel should be aware that the

en banc court will have copies of all prior briefs and copies of

the petition for rehearing en banc. Although the parties can

address other issues in their supplemental submissions, and the en

banc court is free to consider all of the issues presented, the

court specifically requests that the parties address the following

questions:
-2-

1. Whether the conduct at issue in this case could have

been additionally, or alternatively, prosecuted under the

Stored Communications Act?

2. Whether the rule of lenity precludes prosecution in this

case?

Oral argument is scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on December 8, 2004

in the en banc courtroom in the John Joseph Moakley United States

Courthouse.

The court welcomes timely motions to file amicus briefs

concerning any of the issues in this appeal.

By the Court:

__/s/___________________

Richard Cushing Donovan, 

Clerk of Court

[Certified copy to Hon. Michael A. Ponsor and Mr. Tony Anastas, Clerk, United States District

Court for Massachusetts. Copies to Mr. Katzmann, Ms. Chaitowitz, Mr. Levenson, Mr. Salgado,

Mr. Kerr, Mr. Swire and Mr. Good.]
----

|   | By:         | /s/ ARTHUR      D. LEVINSON                           |   |
|--------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title: | Arthur      D. Levinson, Ph.D.Chief      Executive Officer |   |
|   | Date:       | May      5, 2008                                           |   |

|   | By:         | /s/ DAVID      A. EBERSMAN                                                                       |   |
|--------|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title: | David      A. EbersmanExecutive      Vice President and   Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|   | Date:       | May      5, 2008                                                                                      |   |

----
EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
906 SARBANES OXLEY CERTIFICATION




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SS.1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of New Century Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Duquette, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the
Company.





September 1, 2009
                /s/
      David DuquetteName:  David
      DuquetteTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer andChief
      Financial Officer





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 Company and will be retained by Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Ball Glove Fastening Co. *v.*Ball & Socket Fastener Co.

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

August 20, 1889.)

Patents for Inventions—Prior State of the Art.

The spring-flanged eyelet, combined with the dome-shaped cap having a button-like appearance, claimed in letters patent 5fos. 290,067 and 806,021, issued for glove fasteners, is an improvement on former English and American patents, and the prior state of the art, as shown by them, does not limit the patentee to the exact form of device described in his patents.

In Equity. On bill for injunction and accounting.

*W. B. H. Dowse*and *John R. Bennett,*for complainant.

*T. W. Clarke*and *F. P. Fish,*for defendant.

Colt, J.

When this case was heard on motion for injunction, (36 Fed. Rep. 309,) the questions which are now raised were ably argued bjr counsel and carefully considered by the court. I see no reason upon the additional evidence now before me to change the conclusions then reached. The present hearing only tends to make it clearer to my mind that, under the license which the defendant took of the Kraetzer patents, it has no right to take the position that the Mead fastener, which it makes, is outside of those patents, because an examination shows that the Mead fastener contains certain vital and important elements of the Kraetzer inventions. The defendant is right in saying that it is privileged to make the Mead fastener if it is no infringement of the patents covered by the license, but the difficulty is that the Mead fastener seems clearly to infringe certain claims of the Kraetzer patents. I have compared the two devices in the opinion on motion for an .injunction, and I do not think it necessary to go over the same ground again. I have reviewed once more the prior state of the art as bearing on the question of limiting Kraetzer to the precise form of devices described in his patents. In the spring-flanged eyelet, combined with the dome-shaped cap having a button-like appearance, of Kraetzer, there is found a marked *791Improvement over the prior English patents of Schloss and Bayer, a,nd the American patents shown in the present record, and I do not discover anything in those patents which should limit Kraetzer to the exact form of devices which he patented, and, while the changes made in defendant’s fastener may be an improvement upon Kraetzer, that fastener is none the less an infringement of the Kraetzer patents. Decree for complainant.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 50212 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

EDGAR IVAN GALVAN, also known as El Negro

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10

- CR

- 3172

- 2

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Edgar Ivan Galvan 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).

Galvan has filed a response. We h ave reviewed counsel’ s brief and the relevant

part s of the record reflected therein , as well as Galvan ’ s response . We concur

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

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 8, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Cle rk Case: 16-50212 Document: 00513868418 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2017No. 16

- 50212

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-50212 Document: 00513868418 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2017