alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 24, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-41301

Conference Calendar

 

JERRY LYNN WILKINS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

SUZANNE R. HASTINGS,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:01-CV-335

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Lynn Wilkins, a federal prisoner (# 27842-077),

filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to challenge his

1995 convictions on multiple counts of conspiracy, frauds and

swindles, and aiding and abetting. The district court dismissed

Wilkins’s petition without prejudice due to his failure to

comply with a court order that he replead his petition with more

specificity. Wilkins filed this appeal challenging the district

court’s dismissal of his petition. 
No. 02-41301

-2-

On appeal, Wilkins argues only the propriety of the court

order requiring him to replead his petition. His failure to

brief the non-compliance-with-a-court-order issue, the basis of

the dismissal of his habeas petition, is the same as if he had

not appealed the judgment. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly,

the appeal is without arguable merit, and we dismiss the appeal

as frivolous. See Howard v. King 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2630 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2630

  To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on plastic lamp-holder 
                      housings containing sockets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on plastic lamp-holder 
                      housings containing sockets.

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

SECTION 1. PLASTIC LAMP-HOLDER HOUSINGS CONTAINING SOCKETS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.29 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to plastic lamp-holder housings 
containing sockets) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting 
``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
-  Home 
        -  Research & Funding 
        -  Current Funding Opportunities 
        -  Notice of Special Interest in Research on Family Support and Rejection in the Health and Well-Being of SGM Populations 

View Current Funding Opportunities

# Notice of Special Interest in Research on Family Support and Rejection in the Health and Well-Being of SGM Populations

The mission of the NIH is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. The NIH is committed to supporting research that will increase scientific understanding of health and well-being and lead to the development of effective evidence-based strategies, interventions, and services for people of all ages and backgrounds. NIH places a high priority on research with individuals and populations at increased risk for adverse health outcomes, and especially those who have received insufficient attention from the scientific research enterprise. To this end, and in response to Executive Order 14075 on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals, this Notice of Special Interest (NOSI) announces an interest in research on the impact and consequences of family support and family rejection on the health and well-being of sexual and gender minority (SGM, defined for NIH purposes in NOT-OD-19-139) individuals across the life course. 

### Funding Opportunity Details

Full Announcement:NOT-OD-23-166Related Notices or Announcements:                None            

Program Contact:Bonnie Burgess-Beusse, Ph.D.

See the Full Announcement for the list of all related Activities.

NOTE: The NIDDK does not co-sponsor the NIH Exploratory Developmental Research Grant Program (Parent R21). The NIDDK will continue to accept R21 applications submitted in response to targeted NIDDK solicitations.

### Key Dates

Open Date:            8/28/2023        

Letter of Intent Due Date:            Read full announcement
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and

Full House Resorts, Inc.

Las Vegas, Nevada

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of Full House Resorts, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-29299) of our report dated
March 29, 2007, on the consolidated financial statements of Full House Resorts, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005.



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Piercy Bowler Taylor & Kern                   
|                                                  
|Piercy, Bowler Taylor & Kern,                     
|Certified Public Accountants and Business Advisors
|A Professional Corporation                        
|Las Vegas, Nevada                                 
|                                                  
|March 29, 2007
#### Mowat and others *v.*Brown and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. Minnesota.*

July, 1883.)

Practice—Continuance—Absence oe Material Witness.

Where a defendant, having good reason to believe that his co-defendant, who is a resident of Canada and has not been served, will be present at the trial as he has promised, in reliance on such promise has failed to take his testimony by deposition, and the testimony of the co-defendant is material, a continuance of the case may be granted to allow such testimony to be taken.

At Law.

*Atwater é Atwater,*tor plaintiffs.

*A. R. Lewis,*for defendants.

Nelson, J.,

*(orally.)*A motion is made in this case for a continuance on account of the absence of a material witness. The material witness is the co-defendant, who was not served with process. The suit was brought against Brown & Brown, consisting of Calvin Brown and his brother. The plaintiff resides in Minneapolis, and the co-defendant not served resides in Canada. The suit is brought upon a bill of exchange, in which both parties are interested. Issue was joined in the state court of the county of Hennepin some time in February, and the case was removed to this court some time in the month of July. The co-defendant, who was not served, it appears, according to the affidavit of the party served, was in Minneapolis in the latter part of February, this year. He stated to the co-defendant that he would be on hand ready to be a witness, and to be examined as a witness for him in the case. Calvin Brown, who was served, supposed and he had reason to believe that his co-defendant, who was equally interested in the result of the controversy, would be present in attendance as a witness, as he had so stated, and in view of that *719fact his deposition was not taken, neither was he served with a summons to appear at this term, when he was in this state in February. I think, from all the facts stated in the case, that there is no doubt about the materiality of the testimony of the co-defendant, Brown, who is now in Canada. His brother was led to believe, even as late as this month,—about the sixth or seventh of this month,—that he would be in attendance, by a correspondence that he had with him. In view of these facts, stated in the affidavit, notwithstanding objection being made by plaintiff to the continuance of this case, it will have to go over the term.

The motion for continuance is granted.
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

kriti.sharma@nih.gov

August 2023

Back to Top
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 Columbia Laboratories, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Fred
Wilkinson, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(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/ Fred Wilkinson
                                             ------------------
                                             Fred Wilkinson
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             August 4, 2004
[935 NE2d 791, 909 NYS2d 1]

#### Roni LLC et al., Appellants, v Rachel L. Arfa et al., Respondents.

Decided September 16, 2010

*827APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Balber Pickard Maldonado & Van Der Tuin, PC,*New York City *(John Van Der Tuin*of counsel), for appellants.

*Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP,*New York City *(David J. Katz*of counsel), for Rachel L. Arfa and others, respondents.

*Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,*New York City *(Mark G. Cunha*and *Scott A. Sukenick*of counsel), for Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, P.C. and another, respondents.

*Beilin & Associates LLC,*White Plains *(Aytan Y. Beilin*of counsel), for Edward Lukashok, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiffs’ conclusory pleadings do not give rise to an inference that the attorney defendants knowingly participated in the alleged aiding and abetting of a breach of fiduciary duty by providing substantial assistance to the promoter defendants in their purported commission scheme *(see Kaufman v Cohen,*307 AD2d 113, 126 [1st Dept 2003]; *see generally Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP,*12 NY3d 553 [2009]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael D. Wesley, Appellant.

Submitted July 12, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

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.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Cistera  Networks,  Inc. on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2006,  as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cynthia
Garr,  Interim C.F.O.  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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/    Cynthia A. Garr
Cynthia A. Garr
C.F.O.,
Executive Vice-President of Corporate Development,
and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)


November 14, 2006


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
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Fred W. Wagenhals, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Action PerformanceCompanies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Fred W. Wagenhals    Fred W. Wagenhals  Chief Executive Officer  December 10, 2004
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 ofChapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code**

 

I,John E. Rooney, the chief executive officer of United States CellularCorporation, certify that (i) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe first quarter of 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of United States CellularCorporation.

 

 
|   | /s/  John E. Rooney |
|--------|---------------------|
|   | John  E. Rooney     |
|   | May 6,  2009   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to United States Cellular Corporationand will be retained by U.S. Cellular and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0505

_________________

JOEL WALBERG,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Respondent and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Brenda Gilbert, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 8 2021

09/08/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0505
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00126

- CR

Albino CEDILLO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court

, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- 0019

- CR

Honorable Steve Hilbig , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, Cedillo’s challenge to the aggravated

sexual assault of a child count is DISMISSED for want of jurisdicti on and the remainder of the

judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

.

SIGNED September 13, 2023.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
#### Tim F. Kinsella, Respondent-Appellant, v Powerguard Specialty Insurance Services, LLC, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 65]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 24, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the first cause of action as against defendant Fowerguard Specialty Insurance Services, LLC, (PowerGuard) and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action as against Edgewood Partners Insurance Center (EPIC), unanimously modified, on the law, to dismiss plaintiff’s first cause of action as against EPIC, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

*415Plaintiff, Tim F. Kinsella, an insurance producer, left his previous employment, allegedly in reliance on statements made by representatives of PowerGuard, that, inter alia, PowerGuard had the ability to issue certain property and warranty insurance, and based on these representations, accepted employment with PowerGuard. Plaintiff and PowerGuard entered into a contract, agreeing, inter alia, that plaintiff would work for PowerGuard as an “at will” employee, at a large decrease in his former salary. Plaintiff learned that these representations were false, and that he could not sell the subject insurance policies, and he thereafter received written termination from employment under a letterhead of defendant EPIC.

Plaintiff brought an action alleging, inter alia, fraud in the inducement against PowerGuard and EPIC. Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege reasonable reliance and damages separate from his termination from PowerGuard, his at-will employer, so as to state a claim for fraud in the inducement against it *(see Smalley v Dreyfus Corp.,*10 NY3d 55, 59 [2008]; *Arias v Women in Need,*274 AD2d 353 [1st Dept 2000]). Nor did plaintiff plead such a claim against EPIC, since there is no showing in plaintiff’s complaint that EPIC had anything to do with plaintiffs employment with PowerGuard *(see M Entertainment, Inc. v Leydier,*71 AD3d 517, 519-520 [1st Dept 2010]). Assuming, arguendo, that EPIC acted as plaintiffs employer when the Human Resources Department shared by PowerGuard and EPIC sent plaintiff a termination letter on EPIC’s letterhead, then plaintiff’s fraud in the inducement claim would still be barred *(see Smalley,*10 NY3d at 59). Concur — Tom, J.R, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter, Clark, JJ.
[947 NE2d 153, 922 NYS2d 262]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terence G. Jordan, Appellant.

Argued February 15, 2011;

decided April 5, 2011

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Legal Aid Society,*New York City *(Elon D. Harpaz, Kristina Schwarz*and *Steven Banks*of counsel), for appellant.

*846
      *Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Vincent Rivellese*and *Susan Axelrod*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In 2000, defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment. After our decision in *People v Catu*(4 NY3d 242 [2005]), he was resentenced by Supreme Court, which pronounced a term of postrelease supervision that had been mistakenly omitted at the time of the first sentencing. Defendant appealed from the resentencing to the Appellate Division, asking that the conviction and sentence entered on his guilty plea be vacated.

The Appellate Division correctly held that defendant could not challenge his plea on appeal from a resentencing proceeding. CPL 450.30 (3) provides that “when a resentence occurs more than thirty days after the original sentence, a defendant who has not previously filed a notice of appeal from the judgment may not appeal from the judgment, but only from the resentence.” An appeal such as this one seeking immediate relief from an underlying judgment of conviction is not one “only from the resentence.”

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.