alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Epstein & Brother *et al. v.*Williamson *et al.*

The court did not err in denying the injunction prayed for.

June 11, 1894.

Petition for injunction and receiver. Before Judge-Smith. Montgomery county. February 3, 1894.

Griffin & Brown and N. B. Beasley, for plaintiffs.

F. H. Saffold, for defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M E G A N M A R IE L M O R R IL L O , a. k. a. M e ga n M a r i e l , a . k. a . M e ga n M orr i l l o, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10044 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 8 - c r - 0 1 4 1 2 - D CB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d C . B ury , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M egan M ar i el M orri l l o app ea l s f rom the 30 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng he rgui l typl e at o a s s aul tr e s ul t i ng i n s e r i ous bodi l yi nj ury , i n vi ol a t i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 1 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) a n d1 1 5 3 . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , 

# FI LED JAN 19 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 10044 2 a n dw e a f

f i rm. M orri l l o con t ends the se nt ence i s s ub st ant i vel y unrea sonabl e i n l i gh tof her m a nyc om pe l l i ng m i t i ga t i ng f a c t or s a nd the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i m pe rm i s s i bl yna rr ow f o c u s o n th e s e r io u s n e s s o f th e o f f e n s e a n dth e n e e df

o rg e n e r a l d e te rr e n c e . M o rr illo ’s s e n te n c e a t th e lo w e n do f th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly re as on abl e i n l i gh tof the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s and the se nt enci ng fa ct ors s e t f o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . See U n i ted S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 520 F . 3d 984, 992- 93 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) ; see a l so U n i ted S ta tes v . G ut i errez- Sa nchez , 587 F . 3d 90 4, 90 8 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( “ T he w ei gh tt o b e gi ven the vari ou s [ se ct i on 35 53 (a ) se nt enci ng ] fa ct ors i n a part i cul arca se i s f or the di sc re t i on of the di stri ctcourt . ”) . AF F I RME D.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

L. SEVILLE PARKS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RICHARD FALGE; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-15307

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00405-RCJ-VPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

L. Seville Parks, a former Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

FILED

JUN 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15307

district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, and for clear error its factual

determinations. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We

affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Parks’s action because Parks failed to

exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was obstructed from doing

so. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (2006) (“proper exhaustion” is

mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules). 

Parks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 3.48


                  Amendments to Bylaws of Public Storage, Inc.
               Adopted by the Board of Directors on August 5, 2003



                  WHEREAS: The Board of Directors of this corporation considers
         it to be in the best interests of the corporation to increase the
         authorized number of directors of the corporation from ten (10) to
         eleven (11);

                  WHEREAS: The corporation's Bylaws permit the Board of
         Directors to designate the number of directors of the corporation
         provided that such number is within the range of not less than eight
         (8) or more than fifteen (15).

                  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the second sentence of
         Section 3 of Article IV of the corporation's Bylaws is hereby amended
         to read as follows:

                         "The exact number of directors shall be eleven (11)
                  until changed within the limits specified above, by a bylaw
                  amending this section 3, duly adopted by the board of
                  directors or by the shareholders."
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 In connection with the Annual Report of RSC Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 2007 (the Report), I, Erik Olsson, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and I, David Mathieson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
 1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Companies.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and
Chief Executive OfficerMarch 14, 2008/s/ David MathiesonDavid MathiesonSenior Vice President, and
Chief Financial OfficerMarch 14, 2008
Exhibit 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION
                    Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

I, Scott D. Guffey, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cubic Energy, Inc.

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report.

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a -15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant,  including its
     consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made  known to us by  others  within  those
     entities,  particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
     being prepared;
     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions   about  the
     effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and,
     (c)  disclosed  in this  quarterly  report any  change in the  registrant's
     internal  control  over  financial   reporting  that  occurred  during  the
     registrant's  first fiscal  quarter  that has  materially  affected,  or is
     reasonably likely to materially affect,  the registrant's  internal control
     over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the Audit  Committee  of the  registrant's  Board of
Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
     (a) all significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to record,  process,
     summarize and report financial information; and,
     (b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control
     over financial reporting.


Date: November 13, 2007

Signature: /s/ Scott D. Guffey
           ---------------------------------
           Scott D. Guffey, C.F.O.
EX-35.1
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
Centerline Servicing Inc.

The undersigned, Keith Crandall, Servicing Officer of Centerline Servicing Inc.,
(f/k/a ARCap Servicing, Inc.), the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling
and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of
March 1, 2007 ("Transaction Closing Date"), relating to the Bear Stearns
Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2007-PWR15, hereby certifies as follows:


1. a review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the preceding
   calendar year or portion thereof commencing from and after the Transaction
   Closing Date and of the performance of the Special Servicer under the
   Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under the undersigned
   officer's supervision; and

2. to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the
   Special Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and
   Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, or
   portion thereof commencing from the Transaction Closing Date.

Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given
them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the 7th day of March, 2008, I have hereunto signed my
name.



/s/ Keith Crandall
Keith Crandall
Servicing Officer of
Centerline Servicing Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
* 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

July 16, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60902

Summary Calendar

MARIE BROWN, Mother and Next Friend of Nicole Brown,

Plaint iffAppellee,

versus

LONG BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; ET AL.,

Defendants,

ANTHONY KALLAS,

DefendantAppellant.

-------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:02-CV-697

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Officer Anthony Kallas appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss plaint iff’s

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint on the basis of qualified immunit y. S ee F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 12(b)(6). Officer-2-

Kallas argues that there was no evidence that he violated any clearly established constitutional rights

of Nicole Brown and that even if his tackling of Brown was unconstitutional, there was no caselaw

indicating as much at the time of the arrest.

Qualified immunit

y shields police officers from suit “unless their conduct vi olat es a clearly

established constitutional right.” M ace v. City of Palest ine , 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Ci r. 2003).

Brown, a teenage girl weighing less than 100 pounds with no known history of violence, alleged that

when she fled from Officer Kallas, a 300 pound man who was attempting to arrest her for truancy,

he chased and tackled her and her pelvis was broken as a result of the tackle. As the facts are not in

disput e, it does not appear beyond doubt that Brown will be unable to prove the elements of an

excessive force claim. See Rochon v. City of Angola

, 122 F.3d 319, 320 (5th Cir. 1997); Ikerd v.

Blair , 101 F.3d 430, 433-34 (5th Cir. 1996).

Officer Kallas argues that the right was not “clearly established” at the time of the arrest. S ee

Mace

, 333 F.3d at 623. Although there was no caselaw expressly prohibiting the tackling of a fleeing

teenage girl weighing less than 100 pounds, there was no caselaw permitting it, and the right under

the Fourth Amendment to be free from the excessive use of force by law enforcement officers was

clearly established. S ee Ikerd

, 101 F.3d at 433-34. It does not appear beyond doubt that Brown will

be unable to prove that Officer Kallas’ actions were objectively unreasonable, especially in light of

the nonviolent nature of the offense for which he was arresting her (truancy) and the apparent lack

of threat she posed to anyone. S ee Gutierrez v. City of San Antonio

, 139 F.3d 441, 447 (5th Cir.

1998). The district court did not err in denying Officer Kallas’ motion to dismiss based on qualified

immunit y.

AFFIRMED.-3-
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION


 I, Elise Nissen, Chief Financial Officer of AFP Imaging Corporation, certify
that:

1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging
    Corporation;

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;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
    information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
    the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
    registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
    establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
    in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
             disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
             supervision, to enable that material information relating to the
             registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
             to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
             period in which this report is being prepared;

         b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
             and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
             the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
             the end of the period covered by this report based on such
             evaluation; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
             or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
             reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
             record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
             other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
             internal controls over financial reporting.









Date: November 13, 2003                   ___________/s/______________
                                                  Elise Nissen
                                            Chief Financial Officer



                                       16
HOWARD C. HICKEY

,

Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of

Corrections

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION TH EREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 255

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 18, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Lafayette County

. Darren K. Jackson , Judge

.

Howard C. Hickey, pro se , Appellant.

Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Samuel B. Steinberg and Jay Kubica, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO

, THOMAS

, and CLARK

, J J

. , CONCUR.

1
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: ADDISA JAHRUSALEM FRANCIS, aka 

Jacqueline Dennis,

Petitioner

______________________

2022-151

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-02081-MMS, Senior 

Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Addisa Jahrusalem Francis petitions this court for “a 

writ of control to compel mandate in accordance with the 

judgment” of this court in Francis v. United States, Appeal 

No. 2022-1188. She also submits motions for “entry of default judgment” and an “order of supersedeas bond.”

Ms. Francis filed a complaint at the United States

Court of Federal Claims primarily challenging her and her 

husband’s prior criminal conviction. The court dismissed

the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and certified that an 

appeal would not be taken in good faith. On appeal, we 

Case: 22-151 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 06/28/2022
2 IN RE: FRANCIS

dismissed after concluding that Ms. Francis had failed to 

raise any non-frivolous challenge to the judgment of the 

Court of Federal Claims. This court subsequently denied 

her petition for en banc review and issued a mandate. 

To the extent that Ms. Francis is seeking a writ of mandamus, such relief is appropriate only when the petitioner 

has demonstrated clear entitlement to the relief requested

and no alternative means to obtain such relief. See Cheney 

v. U.S. Dist. Ct. of D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Ms. 

Francis’s petition states that she seeks “release[] of Henry 

Francis [Ms. Francis’s husband] from United States Maximum Security [Penitentiary] and petitioner Addisa 

Jahrusalem Francis . . . held by Supervised Release.” Pet. 

at 13. This court has already explained to Ms. Francis why 

the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction to grant 

such request. Under these circumstances, we must conclude that Ms. Francis is not entitled to the relief she seeks. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is denied.

(2) All pending motions are denied.

June 28, 2022 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-151 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 06/28/2022
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6144

JOEY D. SCOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HUDGINS, Sgt.; MATTHEW PENNELL; KEITH WHITENER; BOYD 

BENNETT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cv-00137-GCM)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joey D. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6144 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joey D. Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion to vacate the district court’s 2008 order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint.∗

 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order. Scott v. Hudgins, No. 5:08-cv-00137-GCM (W.D.N.C. 

Jan. 30, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗ We affirmed the district court’s order denying relief on Scott’s § 1983 complaint. 

Scott v. Hudgins, 334 F. App’x 554 (4th Cir. 2009) (No. 09-6051).

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6144 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
----

----

**EXHIBIT        32.2**

**CERTIFICATE        OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.        1350)**

|   | 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/  Samuel                  J. Alderson                                                           |   |   |   |
|                                                                                                         |   |   |   |
| Samuel                  J. AldersonChief                  Financial OfficerOctober                  19, 2007 |   |   |   |

----