alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not prec e dent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R.

47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

December 29, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 04-30915

____________

BOYD BAKER; SARAH BAKER; CAMERAS AMERICA LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

HAROLD DEARIE, ET AL,

Defendants,

CANAL INDEMNITY CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CV-678-C

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Boyd Baker, Sarah Baker, and Cameras America, L.L.C. (collectively, “Cameras”) appeal the-2-

district court’s summary judgment in favor of Canal Indemnity Company (“Canal”). Cameras argues

that the district court erred in holding that Canal had no duty to defend Cameras in two state lawsuits,

one in Louisiana and one in Texas.

At the time of the district court’s summary judgment, a Louisiana district court had held that

Canal had a duty to defend Cameras in the Louisiana litigation. A state appellate court affirmed that

holding before the parties submitted their briefs in this appeal. Subsequent to oral argument in this

appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Canal’s writ application seeking further review.

C anal conceded in its brief that the denial of its writ application by the Louisiana Supreme

Court would render the state court’s determination final. It also conceded that such a determination

would have a preclusive effect in this litigation. See Law Offices of Moore & Assocs. v. Aetna Ins.

Co.

, 902 F.2d 418, 420 (5th Cir. 1990) (“In [a] diversity case, state law determines the preclusive

effect of a prior state court judgment.” (internal quotati on omitted)); L A

. R EV

. S TAT

. 13:4231(3) (“A

judgm ent in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent action

between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was

essential to that judgment.”). We therefore reverse the judgment of t he district court as to the

Louisiana litigation.

As to the Texas litigation, the district court awarded Canal summary judgment for multiple

reasons, including that the events described in the Texas petition could not be construed as

occurrences under the policy and that the policy’s work product exclusion is applicable. Cameras’s

brief does not address these holdings at all. Its contention that the district court’s judgment should

be reversed as to the Texas litigation is therefore waived for inadequate briefing. See F ED

. R. A PP

.

P. 28(a)(9)(A).-3-

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court as it relates to

the Louisiana litigation and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with

this opinion. We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court as it relates to the Texas litigation.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1978 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1978

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 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 Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 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 HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
              NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY 
              DISEASES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute of 
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $2,029,823,000.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    NOVEMBER 19, 2004
 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED 
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
  CANADA
    
    000-30758
    
    62-12-62580(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
    
    L6T 5P6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
  Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
  
 (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)
  Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation
of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General
Instruction A.2. below):  o
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17
CFR 230.425)  o
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14a-12)  o
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))  o
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 1.01.
    Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement On November 19, 2004, Nortel Networks Corporation issued a press release (the
Press Release), attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, announcing, among other
things, that the registrant obtained a new waiver from Export Development
Canada (EDC), the terms and conditions of which are summarized in the Press
Release which is incorporated by reference herein. A copy of the letter
agreement containing the waiver and related amendments to the EDC Support
Facility (as defined in the Press Release) is filed herewith as Exhibit 99.2. Nortel Networks Corporation owns all of the registrants common shares and the
registrant is Nortel Networks Corporations principal direct operating
subsidiary.  Item 9.01
    Financial Statements and Exhibits (c)
    
    Exhibits99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on November 19, 2004.99.2
    
    Letter Agreement dated November 19, 2004 between the registrant and EDC.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.  NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITEDBy:
    /s/   William R. KerrWilliam R. KerrChief Financial OfficerBy:
    /s/   Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant Secretary Dated:   November 19, 2004




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX  Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on November 19, 2004.99.2
    
    Letter Agreement dated November 19, 2004 between the registrant and EDC.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bernardo Martinaj, Appellant.

Submitted July 27, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 56 AD3d 349.

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
Wilshire
Credit Corporation







Exhibit
      U
              
              Payments
                P.O.
      Box 105344; Atlanta, GA 30348-5344
                or  P.O.
      Box 7195; Pasadena, CA 91109-7195March
      12, 2008
              
              Correspondence
                P.O.
      Box 8517; Portland, OR 97207-8517Phone
                (503)
      952-7947
                (888)502-0100Fax
                (503)
      952-7476Web
      Site
                www.wcc.ml.com


LaSalle
Bank NA


135 S.
LaSalle Street


IL4-135-15-11


Chicago,
IL   60603


Attn:
RMBS Administration





Merrill
Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc


250 Vesey
Street


4 World
Financial Center, 10th Floor


New York,
NY   10080


Attn:
Ketan Parekh


Re:      Annual
Officer's Certificate
 (Wilshire
Pool 1504) Pooling & Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2007 between
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc., Depositor, Wilshire Credit Corporation,
Servicer, and LaSalle Bank National Association, Trustee for the Merrill Lynch
Mortgage Investors Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series
2007-SD1.
  I, Ken
Frye, Senior Vice President, Loan Servicing of Wilshire Credit Corporation (the
"Servicer"), hereby certify that:
  (i)
                A
      review of the activities of the Servicer during such preceding calendar
      year and of the performance under the Agreement has been made under my
      supervision, and(ii)
                To
      the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
      all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
      throughout such year or a portion
thereof.
 
     /s/ Ken
Frye
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-60476

Summary Calendar

_____________________

STEPHEN P. SHERWOOD;

SHARON L. SHERWOOD,

Petitioners-Appellants,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Decision of the

United States Tax Court

(16797-95)

_________________________________________________________________ February 26, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this tax protester case, Stephen P. Sherwood and Sharon L.

Sherwood o bject on multitudinous grounds to the tax court’s

determination of deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties for

the tax years 1991, 1992, and 1993. After a thorough review of the

record and a close study of the briefs, we co nclude that the-2-

Sherwoods’ arguments are all without merit. Indeed, they are

frivolous.

Among the Sherwoods’ complaints are the contentions that the

tax court lacked jurisdiction, that it erred in sustaining the

Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s assessment of deficiencies,

additions to tax and penalties, and that it abused its discretion

in declaring su a sponte penalties for advocating a frivolous

position.

The S herwoods’ jurisdictional complaint and most of their

argument on the merits are tied to a belief that they are citizens

of the State of Texas, not the United States. For this reason,

they conclude that they are (1) not subject to most taxes and (2)

permitted to file Form 1040-NR (non-resident). As there is

obviously no validity to the Sherwoods’ concept of citizenship, the

arguments based upon it are frivolous.

The remainder o f the Sherwoods’ argument on the merits

revolves around a contention that they owed no taxes for wages

because the labor performed balanced the wage received, resulting

in no net income. As it is unfortunately and manifestly not so,

there is no merit to this argument either.

The Sherwoods’ final contention i s that the district court

abused its discretion in assessing a $2500 penalty against each of

them for advancing the wage arg ument just discussed. I.R.C.-3-

§ 6673(a) expressly empowers the tax court to assess such a penalty

for advancing a frivolous position, however, and it cannot be said

that the court abused its discretion in doing so in this case.

Indeed, in the light of the fact that § 6673(a) allows for a

penalty of up to $25,000, we are only surprised that the tax court

was so restrained.

For these reasons and those expressed in th e tax court’s

careful and patient opinion, it s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Furthermore, because this appeal was utterly frivolous, it is also

ORDERED that the Sherwoods show cause within ten days time why

reasonable attorney’s fees and double costs should not be awarded

to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue a s damages, pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 38.

A F F I R M E D.
#### Ronald I. LeVine, Respondent, v Catskill Regional Off-Track Betting Corporation, Appellant.

Submitted February 9, 2009;

decided April 7, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 246 

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing a fee on certain facilities for 

methane emissions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2023 

Mr. ESTES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing 

a fee on certain facilities for methane emissions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marginal Well Protec5 tion Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 246 IH

1 SEC. 2. METHANE EMISSIONS AND WASTE REDUCTION IN2 CENTIVE PROGRAM FOR PETROLEUM AND 

3 NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS. 

4 Section 136(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

5 7436(d)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘section,’’ and inserting ‘‘sec7 tion:’’; 

8 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through 

9 (9) as subparagraphs (A) through (I), respectively; 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘the term’’ and inserting the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(1) The term’’; and 

13 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘(2) The term ‘applicable facility’ does not in15 clude a facility that produces less than 15 barrels of 

16 oil per day and less than 90 thousand cubic feet of 

17 natural gas per day.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2007-3T1 (the
            "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
            whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
            information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
            covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
            reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
            in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
            disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
            fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
            material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
            of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
            this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank
      of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2008

      /s/ Steve Bailey
      --------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
      (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
      Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00620]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9001]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``On Kawara: Silence'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``On Kawara: Silence,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 
New York, New York, from on or about February 6, 2015, until on or 
about May 3, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet 
to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that 
Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including 
lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-00620 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Clifton JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEWIS FOOD TOWN, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-20198

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 20, 2006.

Clifton Jackson, Houston, TX, pro se.

James M. Neel, Terrence Bouvier Robinson, Linda Hursey Evans, Neel & Hooper, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellant only complains of his treatment by his former employer and does not address the reason why the district court dismissed his lawsuit. Our examination of the record reveals that the dismissal was in accord with the rules and within the discretion of the court.

For many months the magistrate judge, district judge, and counsel for Lewis Food Town patiently and properly sought to obtain from the appellant information supporting his claim. The Rules of Civil Procedure were followed and appellant was informed of what was required and what consequences could result from failure to comply. Because appellant continued to refuse to comply, Rule 37(b)(2)(C) warrants the judgment of dismissal.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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 for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 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.




*November
                19,
                2008*
              
              /s/ *David
                Duquette**Name:
                  David Duquette**Title:
                  Chief Executive Officer and*
                  *Chief
                    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.