alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 10, 2020 *

Decided November 19, 2020

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

J OEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

No. 20

‐ 2483

K. W., a minor,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v

.

PONTIAC POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant

‐ Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 20

‐ CV

‐ 1234

J ames E. Shadid,

J udge

.

O R D E R

K. W., a minor (until November 28 of this year), sued the Pontiac, Illinois Police

Department for injuries related to an arrest that occurred ten years ago, when he was

only seven years old. Noting that he was unrepresented, the district court ordered K. W.

to explain why his suit should not be dismissed because as a minor he lacked the

capacity to sue. K. W.’s mother sought to sue on his behalf (with his approval), but

because she was also unrepresented, the judge denied her motion. Then, K. W.’s motion

* The appellee was not served with process and is not participating in this appeal.

We agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the brief and record

adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not

significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp

. P. 32.1No. 20

‐ 2483 Page 2

for the recruitment of counsel was denied because he did not demonstrate efforts to

obtain counsel on his own. The judge dismissed the suit without prejudice and entered

judgment. K. W. was advised that he could refile with counsel or when he reaches the

age of majority.

K. W. appeals, but his brief does not comply with Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure. His submission fails to advance any argument for disturbing

the district court’s judgment. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(8). Instead, the brief is a copy of

his complaint, with a new date superimposed and header information added. We

construe pro se filings liberally, but K. W. fails to provide even a bare

‐ bones argument

that he or his mother as next friend could litigate the case pro se. See Elustra v. Mineo

,

595 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir. 2010). And we “cannot fill the void by crafting arguments and

performing the necessary legal research.” Anderson v. Hardman

, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th

Cir. 2001).

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that both an orientation meeting and planning meeting of the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will convene at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, May, 26, 2009 in Room 2600, located in the Legislative Building, 210 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut. The purpose of the orientation meeting is to inform members about the rules and procedures applicable to members of the Committee, including Federal ethics and laws and rules of conduct, and to the operations of Committee members. The purpose of the planning meeting is to review civil rights issues in the State and plan future activities.

                    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th St., NW., Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 202-376-7533 or by e-mail to:                     *ero@usccr.gov.*

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meetings and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least two (2) working days before the scheduled date of the meetings.

                    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,                     *http://www.usccr.gov,*                     or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.                

The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

Dated in Washington, DC, May 18, 2009.

Christopher Byrnes,

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. E9-11954 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
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

The undersigned executive officers of the registrant hereby
certify that this Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the registrant.



|                         |  |                                                 |  |                            
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                         |  | Parkvale Financial Corporation                 
|                         |  |                                                
|Dated: November 30, 2011 |  | By:                                             |  | /s/ Robert J. McCarthy, Jr.
|                         |  | Robert J. McCarthy, Jr.                        
|                         |  | Director, President and Chief Executive Officer

|                         |  |                                            |  |                      
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------
|                         |  |                                           
|Dated: November 30, 2011 |  | By:                                        |  | /s/ Gilbert A. Riazzi
|                         |  | Gilbert A. Riazzi                         
|                         |  | Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certificate of Chief Executive Officer


Section 1350 Certification








In connection with the annual report of Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas P. Baker, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.









Date: March 1, 2011
By:
/s/ Douglas P. BakerDouglas P. BakerChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

*Notice of Cancellation:*                     This notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 19, 2009, Volume 74, Number 95, pages 23422-23423. The meeting previously scheduled to convene on June 4, 2009, has been cancelled.                 

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Brad Perkins, M.D., M.B.A., Executive Officer, Advisory Committee to the Director, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., M/S D-14, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone 404/639-7000.                 

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                 

Dated: May 19, 2009. 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office,  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 [FR Doc. E9-12123 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 Sterling Financial Corporation (“Sterling”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick J. Rusnak, Principal Financial Officer of Sterling, hereby 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, as amended; and


2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sterling.


Dated: April 17, 2014By:/s/ Patrick J. RusnakPatrick J. RusnakExecutive Vice President andPrincipal Financial Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Sterling for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sterling and will be retained by Sterling and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of American Airlines, Inc., Appellant, v New York City Tax Appeals Tribunal et al., Respondents.

Decided February 17, 2011

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### In the Matter of Kaitlynn I., a Child Alleged to be Abused and Neglected. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Jennifer I., Also Known as Jennifer M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (And Another Proceeding.)

Submitted September 21, 2009;

decided December 1, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 654.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceedings within the meaning of the Constitution.
S. Con. Res. 23 Agreed to March 21, 2005

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from

Sunday, March 20, 2005, through Sunday, April 3, 2005, on a

motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority

Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon

on Monday, April 4, 2005, or until such other time as may be

specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion

to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant

to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first;

and that when the House adjourns on any day from Sunday, March

20, 2005, through Monday, April 4, 2005, on a motion offered

pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or

his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April

5, 2005, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section

2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker

of the House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after

consultation with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the

Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the

Senate and House, respectively, to reassemble at such place and
S. Con. Res. 23—2

time as they may designate whenever, in their opinion, the public

interest shall warrant it.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### Clayton *against*Per Dun.

*A*justice'- óf uie fqc(,%ee<ps’áta«a «ave.non-•«MM for that purpose, ¡B die-qualified from

Seethe wsb„jj Sra'ír aft?? •keepingtaverta

g(TMgpeitontr?ai rase^coufer'ju? the justice. 9D

INERROR, on *certiorari*toa justice^,court;

It appeared that,' after issuing the warrant,, arid before the day of trial, in this cause, the justice removed with his family .. *•>*. . . • , • • , ' mto a house which had been occupied ás a tavern, under an ' x agreement with the forpier occupant, that he,,.me justice, might “continue the tavern in the said house, until the license could ^e renewed.” -The cause.was tried.in that house a few days after the justice had taken possession of it. The tavern sign °f former occupant was still-kept up,,.and travellers called as usual, and drank spirituous liquors, and. paid for them ; but the justice returned, that,he did not-consider himself as keeping a tavern. Judgment was given for the now defendant, who was defendant in the court below. -

*Per Curiam**

*The*evidence clearly shows, that the justice kept a tavern *in fact;*aqd whether he had, or had not,, a license for. that purpose, he Was equally disqualified for trying causes as a justice.- Nof is It material .that the suit was instituted before he became, so disqualified;. nor would it cure the defect if .the, plaintiff below did áppéar and consent, to the trial, becaiise such consent .could not confer jurisdictioft. *Low*v. *Rice,,*(8 *Johns. Rep.*409.,) on the-two; last points, is.decisive.

The. judgment must, be reversed*
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10531 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
EMILIO GARZA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 261

- 1

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Emilio Garza appeals the 188

- month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for being a fel on in possession of a firearm. He contends
that our recent decision in United States v. Herrold , 883 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Apr. 18, 2018) (No. 17

- 1445) , supports his argument that his prior Texas burglary conviction s do not support an enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

* 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 November 21, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10531 Document: 00514732519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2018No. 17

- 10531

2 This court reviews preserved objections to the application of an ACCA enhancement de novo, see United States v. McGee , 460 F.3d 667, 668 (5th Cir. 2006), applying the law in effect at the time that it renders a decision, see Henderson v. United States , 568 U.S. 266, 271, 279 (2013). We held in Herrold that, in light of Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 ( 2016), a conviction
under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a) cannot serve as an ACCA predicate offense because the statute is indivisible and sets forth offenses broader then the generic definition of burglary. See Herrold , 883 F.3d at 537

. Thus, th e district

c ourt erred in applying the ACCA enhancement to Garza’s sentence based on his Texas burglary convictions. See id. The Government acknowledges this error and makes no attempt to argu e that the error was harmless. A ccordingly, the judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing. Case: 17-10531 Document: 00514732519 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2018
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                            A-FEM MEDICAL CORPORATION
                       CALCULATIONS OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  FOR THE THREE MONTHS                       FOR THE NINE MONTHS
                                                   ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,                        ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                             --------------------------------          --------------------------------
                                                2000                 1999                 2000                 1999
                                             -----------          -----------          -----------          -----------
<S>                                          <C>                  <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Actual weighted average shares
   outstanding for the period                  9,596,558            9,546,717            9,579,892            9,505,888

Dilutive common and preferred stock,
   options and warrants using the
   treasury stock method(1)                           --                   --                   --                   --
                                             -----------          -----------          -----------          -----------
Total shares used in per
   share calculations                          9,596,558            9,546,717            9,579,892            9,505,888
                                             -----------          -----------          -----------          -----------
Net loss                                     $  (486,417)         $  (621,672)         $(1,355,135)         $(1,971,033)
                                             -----------          -----------          -----------          -----------
Basic and diluted net loss per share         $     (0.05)         $     (0.07)         $     (0.14)         $     (0.21)
                                             ===========          ===========          ===========          ===========
</TABLE>

(1) Preferred stock, warrants and options outstanding are not included, as the
    effect would be anti-dilutive.
#### Penn Millers Insurance Company, Appellant-Respondent, v C.W. Cold Storage, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, and Thruway Produce, Inc., Respondent.

[964 NYS2d 56]

Motion for reargument, clarification, or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.

Present—Scudder, EJ, Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
#### David DURAZO-MURRIETA, Petitioner, v. *611Eric H. HOLDER, Jr.,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-73322.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 14, 2008.

Filed May 22, 2009.

Sarvenaz Bahar, Esq., Morrison & Foer-ster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

David Durazo-Murrieta, Eloy Detention Center, Eloy, AZ, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Barry J. Pet-tinato, Esq., Charles E. Canter, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Eric H. Holder, Jr., is substituted for his predecessor Michael B. Mukasey, as Attorney General. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Durazo-Murrieta, a lawful permanent resident who was born in Mexico, petitions for review of a final order of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals. Petitioner claims derivative citizenship through his father.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5). *Minasyan v. Gonzales,*401 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.2005).

The derivative citizenship statute in effect on March 3,1967, when petitioner was born, determines his nationality and citizenship. *Chau v. INS,*247 F.3d 1026, 1028 n. 3 (9th Cir.2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(7) (1967). We previously found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether petitioner’s father was physically present in the United States for a period totaling ten years, with five of those years after age fourteen. We transferred this action to the district court for a de novo hearing and decision regarding nationality and held the petition for review in abeyance pending the district court’s decision. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5)(B); *Chau,*247 F.3d at 1029.

After conducting a de novo evidentiary hearing, the district court held that petitioner had not established that his father was physically present in the United States for the requisite number of years. The parties agree that the district court’s decision resolves the only issue before this court and establishes that petitioner is not entitled to derivative citizenship.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Petitioner concedes that removal proceedings were instituted against him due to his committing two aggravated felonies.