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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30043

Summary Calendar 

CARLTON TREMELL TURNER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

DAVID THOMAS; LONNIE NAIL, 

Defendants-Appellees 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 5:13-CV-2818

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Carlton Tremell Turner, Louisiana prisoner # 372940, appeals the 

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint following a jury 

verdict for the defendants. He also appeals the district court’s denial of his 

postjudgment motions for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59 and for reconsideration of the denial of the motion for a new trial. 

 

* 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

Fif h Circuit

FILED

September 28, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30043 Document: 00514174314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/28/2017
No. 16-30043

2 

This court has a duty to examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte, 

if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely 

notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires that the notice 

of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or 

order from which the appeal is taken. Turner’s timely Rule 59(a) motion for a 

new trial suspended the time for filing a notice of appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 

4(a)(4)(A)(v). Thus, the latest date on which Turner could have filed a timely 

notice of appeal was April 25, 2016, 30 days after the district court’s March 24, 

2016, order denying his Rule 59(a) motion. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1), (a)(4)(A). 

However, Turner’s notice of appeal was not filed until May 18, 2016.

Turner’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 59(a) motion 

had no additional tolling effect. See Charles L.M. v. Northeast Indep. Sch. 

Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir. 1989). Further, his motion for 

reconsideration, which alleged substantially the same grounds as urged in the 

first Rule 59(a) motion, was successive. See id. Such successive motions are 

“condemned by well-established authority.” Id. Accordingly, we will not 

review Turner’s motion for reconsideration. See id.

Because Turner’s notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the 

March 24, 2016, order denying his motion for a new trial, it is untimely as to 

both the underlying judgment of dismissal and the denial of his motion for a 

new trial. Given the absence of a timely notice of appeal in this case, this 

appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 Case: 16-30043 Document: 00514174314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/28/2017
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 Quarterly Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold
R. Wolcott, President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.
  
 /s/ Harold R.
      WolcottHarold
      R. WolcottPresident
      (Principal Executive Officer)July
      10, 2009
Approved for Public Release, OCC-U-2024-00691 

 Amanda Weber 

Strategic Advisor for NGA Bolling

Amanda Weber serves as a strategic advisor for NGA Bolling (DIA). She 

exercises a wide and complex range of responsibilities to include the 

integration and execution of intelligence and capabilities across issues of 

strategic competition and global health. Prior to her current assignment, 

Ms. Weber was a Joint Duty Assignee to the National Center for Medical 

Intelligence where she served as the lead infectious disease medical 

intelligence analyst for the Western Hemisphere and Senior Intelligence 

Analyst. Immediately prior to that assignment, she served as the Senior 

Technical Lead for NGA Source for COVID-19 support and was 

responsible for providing strategic and technical guidance to the human 

geography cadre. Ms. Weber holds a Master’s of Science in Geography, 

a Masters of Arts in Liberal Studies, and a Bachelor degree in Physical 

Anthropology.
1 The Honorable James B. Loken became Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2003. 2 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3449

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Reginald Jones, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 2, 2003 Filed: April 7, 2003

___________ Before LOKEN, 1 Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Reginald Jones challenges the district court’s 2denial of his postjudgment motion seeking to dismiss his indictment. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that relief is not available at this time under Fed. R. Crim P. 12(b)(2).-2- See United States v. Patton , 309 F.3d 1093 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 13.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 International Barrier Technology Inc., a company organized under the British Columbia Company Act (the Company) on Form 20-F as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael Huddy, President/CEO/Director of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 result of operations

of the Company.



/s/ Michael Huddy

Michael Huddy, President/CEO/Director





Date: January 06, 2006
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00807

- CR

JOSE ANGEL MORENO , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1322999

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted a ppellant of the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen (14) years of age. On August 24, 2012 , the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for nine (9) years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

. Appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders2

v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by advanc ing frivolous contentions which might arguabl y support the appeal. See Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State , 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); and Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State , 813
S.W.2 d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). As of this date, no pro se response
has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in
the r ecord. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for
review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the j udgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
consolidated balance sheets and statements of income for Telos Corporation and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                           412,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 36,642,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,215,000
<INVENTORY>                                    9,899,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,494,000
<PP&E>                                        38,217,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                22,715,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                80,052,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         29,174,000
<BONDS>                                       41,874,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         47,944,000
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          78,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (39,018,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  80,052,000
<SALES>                                       16,193,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              43,794,000
<CGS>                                         16,029,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 40,481,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,779,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     125,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              677,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     677,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        

</TABLE>
* 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 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51313 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO MUNOZ-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-1495-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Roberto MunozPerez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>




                                     EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements of General Surgical Innovations, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 
333-10305 and No. 333-44791) of our report dated July 28, 1998, on our audits 
of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of 
General Surgical Innovations, Inc. as of June 30, 1998 and 1997 and for the 
years ended June 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996 which reports are included in this 
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 1998.

San Jose, California             PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
September 28, 1998
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 815 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 15-year applicable 

recovery period for depreciation of certain electric transmission property. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2005 

Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. ENZI, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. TALENT, Mr. ENSIGN, and Mr. SMITH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

15-year applicable recovery period for depreciation of 

certain electric transmission property.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PROPERTY TREATED 

4 AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

6 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to classification of certain property) is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (v), by striking the period 
2

•S 815 IS

1 at the end of clause (vi) and by inserting ‘‘, and’’, and 

2 by adding at the end the following new clause: 

3 ‘‘(vii) any section 1245 property (as 

4 defined in section 1245(a)(3)) used in the 

5 transmission at 69 or more kilovolts of 

6 electricity for sale the original use of which 

7 commences with the taxpayer after the 

8 date of the enactment of this clause.’’. 

9 (b) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

10 section 168(g)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

11 1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

12 subparagraph (E)(vi) the following:

‘‘(E)(vii) ..................................................................................................... 30.’’.

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 

16 ending after such date.

Æ
Order entered September 16 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00744
- CV
ROBBIE LESA HAMES HO RTON, Appellant

V. KIMBERLY A. STOVALL, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 14190



### O RDER The reporter’s record is overdue. By notice dated July 13, 2016, the Court instructed Sheretta Martin, Official Court Reporter for the 162nd Judicial District Court, to file the reporter’s record within thirty days. As of today’s date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Martin to file, by OCTOBER 5, 2016 , either (1) the reporter’s record, (2) written verification that appellan t has not requested preparation of the reporter’s record, or (3) written verification that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparation of the reporter’s record. We caution appellant that if we receive written verification of no request or payment, the Court may order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c).We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Martin and

counsel for all parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFP Imaging Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, David Vozick, Co-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:

     (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 operation of
          the Company.


/s/       David Vozick


David Vozick,
Chairman of the Board
(Co-Principal Executive Officer)
November 14, 2002
954 A.2d 456

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner v. Yalonda Michelle DOUGLAS, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG, No. 93

Sept.Term, 2007.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 14, 2008.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed herein, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772, it is this 14th day of August, 2008,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Yalonda M. Douglas, be, and she is hereby, disbarred by consent from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Yalonda M. Douglas from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772(d) shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State.
#### In the Matter of Soheil Darvish, Respondent, v Haslacha, Inc., et al., Respondents, and David Lavian, Appellant.

Submitted May 10, 2010;

decided June 29, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the orders sought to be appealed from do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 632

To authorize the extension of unconditional and permanent nondiscriminatory 

treatment (permanent normal trade relations treatment) to the products 

of Ukraine, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 16, 2005

Mr. LUGAR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To authorize the extension of unconditional and permanent 

nondiscriminatory treatment (permanent normal trade 

relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine, 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. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds that Ukraine—

5 (1) allows its citizens the right and opportunity 

6 to emigrate, free of any heavy tax on emigration or 

7 on the visas or other documents required for emigra8 tion and free of any tax, levy, fine, fee, or other 
2

S 632 IS 

1 charge on any citizens as a consequence of the desire 

2 of such citizens to emigrate to the country of their 

3 choice; 

4 (2) has received normal trade relations treat5 ment since concluding a bilateral trade agreement 

6 with the United States that entered into force on 

7 June 23, 1992, which remains in force and provides 

8 the United States with important rights; 

9 (3) has been found to be in full compliance with 

10 the freedom of emigration requirements under title 

11 IV of the Trade Act of 1974 since 1997; 

12 (4) has committed itself to ensuring freedom of 

13 religion and preventing intolerance; 

14 (5) has committed itself to continuing its ef15 forts to return religious property to religious organi16 zations in accordance with existing law; 

17 (6) has taken significant steps demonstrating 

18 its intentions to build a friendly and cooperative re19 lationship with the United States including partici20 pating in peacekeeping efforts in Europe; and 

21 (7) has made progress toward meeting inter22 national commitments and standards in the most re23 cent Presidential runoff elections, including in the 

24 implementation of Ukraine’s new elections laws. 
3

S 632 IS 

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF 

2 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO UKRAINE. 

3 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN4 SION OF UNCONDITIONAL AND PERMANENT NONDISCRIM5 INATORY TREATMENT.—Notwithstanding any provision of 

6 title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), 

7 the President may—

8 (1) determine that such title should no longer 

9 apply to Ukraine; and 

10 (2) after making a determination under para11 graph (1) with respect to Ukraine, proclaim the ex12 tension of unconditional and permanent nondiscrim13 inatory treatment (permanent normal trade relations 

14 treatment) to the products of that country. 

15 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

16 On and after the effective date of the extension under sub17 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod18 ucts of Ukraine, chapter 1 of title IV of the Trade Act 

19 of 1974 shall cease to apply to that country.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Financial Data Sheet
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         319379
<NAME>                        PSC Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-03-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                3,843
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        32,307
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,476
<INVENTORY>                          18,670
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     56,726
<PP&E>                               36,243
<DEPRECIATION>                       11,580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      175,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                44,631
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               1
<COMMON>                                112
<OTHER-SE>                           25,654
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         25,767
<SALES>                             154,728
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    154,728
<CGS>                                91,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        53,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    9,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         287
<INCOME-TAX>                            105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     182
<DISCONTINUED>                         (101)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                             81
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.01
        



</TABLE>