alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana,

sitting by designation.

2 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50399

 

ESTEBAN VILLEGAS-ALANIS; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

ESTEBAN VILLEGAS-ALANIS; SAN JUANITA GONZALES DE VILLEGAS;

MARIA DE LA PAZ VILLEGAS; ALEJANDRO VILLEGAS; JUAN ESTEBAN

VILLEGAS; JOSE LOPEZ; ANTONIO CAZARES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

JAMES D. WURTH; ROBERT L. SCHEER; MIKE MORRIS; MURRAY

EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(DR-99-CV-66)

 

May 14, 2001

Before POLITZ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and FALLON,1

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:2

Having considered the briefs, pertinent parts of the record,

and the arguments of counsel, and concluding there was no abuse of
discretion, the denial of a preliminary injunction prior to the

district court ruling, inter alia, on personal jurisdiction is

affirmed, and this matter is remanded for further appropriate

proceedings.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Daniel E. Smith, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sycamore Networks, Inc.; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 28, 2012



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/S/    DANIEL E.
SMITH               
|Daniel E. Smith                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Motion by the attorney for the child to strike petitioner’s reply brief is granted to the extent of striking references to matters dehors the record.

#### David H. Engelke, Appellant, v Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels *LLP,*Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 12]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J-), entered April 17, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s answer pursuant to CPLR 3126 or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense of general release, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly dismissed the claim of legal malpractice. Even if plaintiff established the requisite conflict based on the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship, which relationship the parties do not dispute, plaintiff failed to establish that he incurred any damages attributable to defendant’s breach of duty *(Kodsi v Gee,*100 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2012]; *Leder v Spiegel,*31 AD3d 266, 268 [1st Dept 2006], *affd*9 NY3d 836 [2007], *cert denied*552 US 1257 [2008]; *Estate of Steinberg v Harmon,*259 AD2d 318 [1st Dept 1999]). Plaintiff argues that, by exclusion from the settlement between Pinnacle and Athle-Tech, he was forced to incur more than $1 million in attorney’s fees in defending against the second Athle-Tech litigation. However, plaintiff cannot show with sufficient certainty that he would have been able to settle with Athle-Tech and thereby have avoided or reduced his costs. Nor can any alleged damages be attributed to a breach of duty of loyalty based on defendant’s prior representation of plaintiff in connection with the Montage SPA. By the time the settlement was made final, plaintiff’s indemnification obligations under the Montage SPA were extinguished.

The court also properly denied plaintiff’s motion to strike *445defendant’s answer based on the destruction of electronic evidence. Plaintiff had all of the disputed documents and cannot claim any prejudice in pursuing his claim *(see Suazo v Linden Plaza Assoc., L.P., 102*AD3d 570, 571 [1st Dept 2013]; *McMahon v Ford Motor Co.,*34 AD3d 263, 264 [1st Dept 2006]). Plaintiff further fails to establish that any failure to produce the emails was willful (CPLR 3126).

In view of the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion seeking to dismiss defendant’s affirmative defense was properly denied as moot. Concur — Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
| (a)   | The                quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007                of the                Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or                15(b) of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | Information                contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects,                the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                  Raghunath Kilambi     |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Raghunath                  Kilambi,        |   |
| Chief                    Executive Officer |   |

----
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                          FURTHER CHANGES TO MANAGEMENT


        Toronto, Canada, December 1, 2004 -- Hollinger Inc. ("Hollinger") (TSX:
HLG.C; HLG.PR.B) announced today the following further changes in its
management:

        -       Peter G. White, formerly Chief Operating Officer and Secretary
                of Hollinger, has been appointed as Vice President, Operations
                and continues as Secretary.

        -       J.A. Boultbee, formerly Executive Vice President of Hollinger,
                no longer continues in that office.


        Hollinger's principal asset is its approximately 68.0% voting and 18.2%
equity interest in Hollinger International. Hollinger International is a
newspaper publisher whose assets include the Chicago Sun-Times and a large
number of community newspapers in the Chicago area, a portfolio of new media
investments and a variety of other assets.


Media contact:
Jim Badenhausen
646-805-2006


                              www.hollingerinc.com
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Exclusive Apparel, Inc. for the Year Ended December 31, 2008, I, Georgette Mathers, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Exclusive Apparel, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





1.   Such Yearly Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2008, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exclusive Apparel, Inc.





Dated:  November 23, 2009





EXCLUSIVE APPAREL, INC.








By:/s/ Georgette Mathers


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer and


Chief Accounting Officer





This certification accompanies this report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 Exclusive Apparel, Inc. and will be retained and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 200 

To amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

of 1974 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

to provide that the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 

Interior are not required to reinitiate consultation on a land management 

plan or land use plan under certain circumstances, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. ROSENDALE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 and the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 to provide that the Secretary 

of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior are 

not required to reinitiate consultation on a land management plan or land use plan under certain circumstances, 

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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 200 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Forest Information 

3 Reform Act’’ or the ‘‘FIR Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NO ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION REQUIRED. 

5 (a) FOREST SERVICE PLANS.—Section 6(d)(2) of the 

6 Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 

7 of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604(d)(2)) is amended to read as 

8 follows: 

9 ‘‘(2) NO ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION RE10 QUIRED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.—Not11 withstanding any other provision of law, the Sec12 retary shall not be required to reinitiate consultation 

13 under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act 

14 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)) or section 402.16 of 

15 title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor 

16 regulation), on a land management plan approved, 

17 amended, or revised under this section when a spe18 cies is listed, critical habitat is designated, or new 

19 information concerning a listed species or critical 

20 habitat becomes available.’’. 

21 (b) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS.—Sec22 tion 202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

23 of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712) is amended by adding at the 

24 end the following: 

25 ‘‘(g) NO ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION REQUIRED

26 UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.—Notwithstanding 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 200 IH

1 any other provision of law, the Secretary shall not be re2 quired to reinitiate consultation under section 7(a)(2) of 

3 the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

4 1536(a)(2)) or section 402.16 of title 50, Code of Federal 

5 Regulations (or a successor regulation), on a land use plan 

6 approved, amended, or revised under this section when a 

7 species is listed, critical habitat is designated, or new in8 formation concerning a listed species or critical habitat be9 comes available.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Pedro Antonio Gomez, * From the 244th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. D-18-2212-CR.

Vs. No. 11-22-00220-CR * February 9, 2023

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has considered Pedro Antonio Gomez’s motion for voluntary 

dismissal of this appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. 

Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
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








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen B. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 14th day of November,
2008.








/s/ Stephen B.
Thompson


Stephen
B. Thompson


Chief
Financial Officer
#### Holly Schepisi et al., Appellants, v Todd Roberts et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 446]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered November 21, 2012, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, and denied plaintiffs Holly *507Schepisi, Neil McPherson, and Kevin Dragan’s (the individual plaintiffs) motion to dismiss defendant Todd Roberts’s counterclaims against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In addition to the individual plaintiffs, plaintiffs consist of Aegis Alabama Venture Fund, LP (Alabama Fund), Aegis Alabama Venture Fund GP, LLC (Alabama GP), Aegis Texas Venture Fund II, LP (Texas II Fund), and Aegis Texas Venture Fund II Gf] LLC (Texas II GP) (collectively, the fund entities).

The motion court correctly denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in their favor on several issues that would be dispositive of the majority of their causes of action. The contractual terms in the applicable operating agreements are ambiguous, and, pursuant to Delaware and Alabama law, which govern the operating agreements, there are triable issues of fact *(GMG Capital Invs., LLC v Athenian Venture Partners I, L.P.,*36 A3d 776, 784 [Del 2012]; *Employees’ Benefit Assn. v Grissett,*732 So 2d 968, 975 [Ala 1998]). One provision in the agreements seems to authorize defendant Todd Roberts to contract with and retain defendant TMR Bayhead Securities, LLC, which he wholly owned, notwithstanding any other provision. The other provision requires that any transactions involving a conflict of interest have supermajority approval of the non-conflicted members, notwithstanding any other provision. As it is unclear which provision authorized or did not authorize Roberts’s conduct in entering into the disputed transaction with Bayhead, the agreements are ambiguous as written, and, in finding that triable issues of fact exist, the court properly relied on Roberts’s testimony that the provision requiring supermajority approval was intended to apply only after the funds closed.

The court also correctly relied on Roberts’s detailed testimony, notwithstanding the lack of certain documentary evidence, in concluding that issues of credibility exist whether Bayhead performed any services in exchange for their payment.

In light of these conclusions, plaintiffs cannot prevail on their motion for summary judgment regarding whether defendant Roberts’s interests in the funds at issue were properly terminated for cause and regarding the damages they seek. Similarly, as plaintiffs acknowledge, Roberts’s counterclaims against the individual plaintiffs relate to the same factual issues regarding the propriety of his conduct in entering into an agreement with and making payments to Bayhead; accordingly, the motion court correctly denied the individual plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss. Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2610 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to specify certain registration 

statement contents for emerging growth companies, to permit issuers 

to file draft registration statements with the Securities and Exchange 

Commission for confidential review, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2023 

Mr. MCHENRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to specify 

certain registration statement contents for emerging 

growth companies, to permit issuers to file draft registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission for confidential review, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. REGISTRATION STATEMENTS. 

4 Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

5 (15 U.S.C. 78l(b)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1)(K), by striking ‘‘years,’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘years (or, in the case of an emerging 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2610 IH

1 growth company, not more than the two preceding 

2 years),’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘Any issuer may confidentially submit to the Commission 

5 a draft registration statement for confidential nonpublic 

6 review by the staff of the Commission prior to public fil7 ing, provided that the initial confidential submission and 

8 all amendments thereto shall be publicly filed with the 

9 Commission not later than 10 days before the issuer’s re10 quested date of effectiveness of the registration statement. 

11 Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Com12 mission shall not be compelled to disclose any information 

13 provided to or obtained by the Commission pursuant to 

14 this subsection. For purposes of section 552 of title 5, this 

15 subsection shall be considered a statute described in sub16 section (b)(3)(B) of such section 552. Information de17 scribed in or obtained pursuant to this subsection shall 

18 be deemed to constitute confidential information for pur19 poses of section 24.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Madelyn Montanez, Appellant, v. Department of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

[973 NYS2d 132]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered December 29, 2011, denying the petition to vacate an arbitration award, dated April 9, 2011, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a public school teacher, confirming the award, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR article 75, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*488Upon review of the transcript provided on appeal, we conclude that the hearing officer’s finding that petitioner fraudulently-obtained a free New York City public school education for her son during the 2009-2010 school year is supported by adequate evidence in the record *(see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y.,*51 AD3d 563, 568 [1st Dept 2008]). Petitioner did not urge the hearing officer to apply a heightened standard in finding fraud.

Although petitioner has an unblemished record as a teacher and offered to resolve the dispute by making restitution, the penalty of termination is not shocking in light of her having used a fraudulent affidavit to obtain a free New York City education for her non-resident child *(see Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ.,*83 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2011]; *compare Matter of Guzman v City of New York,*105 AD3d 460 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33408(U).]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-6508.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 29, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 13, 2006.

Michael Townsend, Appellant Pro Se., N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael Townsend seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. *498§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Townsend has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*