alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-51068 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL ANTHONY HORNE

Plaintiff - Appellant

v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; ET AL

Defendants CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS,

Defendants - Appellees

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-98-CV-472-FB

-------------------- December 1, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Anthony Horne has appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We AFFIRM. Horne argues that he was arrested and detained in violation of his constitutional rights due to the policies or customs of the defendants. A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a municipality must identify the policy, connect the policy to the municipality, andNo. 99-51068 -2- show that the particular injury occurred because of the execution of the policy. Bennett v. City of Slidell , 728 F.2d 762, 767 (5th Cir. 1984)(en banc). Our de novo review of the record reveals that Horne has failed to meet his burden under Bennett . Accordingly, the summary judgment on the merits of Horne’s claims against the defendants is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2706 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2706

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 180.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 180.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 180.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Butanamide, 2,2'-   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        [1,2-                                                              31/2011.......
                        ethanediylbis(oxy-
                        2,1-phenylene-2,1-
                        diazenediyl)]bis[
                        N-(2,3-dihydro-2-
                        oxo-1H-
                        benzimidazol-5-
                        yl)-3-oxo (CAS
                        No. 77804-81-0)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3204.17.60)......

    (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 the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Peter B., a Child Alleged to be Abused. Dutchess County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Peter B., Sr., Appellant. John Georges et al., Nonparty Respondents.

Submitted July 26, 2010;

decided September 23, 2010

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal as against Dutchess County Department of Social Services, dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]; 2103 [b] [2]; [f] [1]; *National Org. for*
      *848
      *Women v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 70*NY2d 939 [1988]); motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2572 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2572

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4,4'-Dithiodimorpholine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

   Mr. Bond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 4,4'-Dithiodimorpholine.

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

SECTION 1. 4,4'-DITHIODIMORPHOLINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.27 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 4,4'-Dithiodimorpholine) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IDM Pharma, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: May 15, 2006       /s/ Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte    Acting Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 203 (Thursday, October 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 54587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25412]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the AIDS 
Clinical Studies and Epidemiology Study Section, November 17, 2009, 8 
a.m. to November 18, 2009, 5 p.m., The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the Federal 
Register on October 9, 2009, 74 FR 52245-52246.
    The meeting will be one day only November 17, 2009. The meeting 
time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: October 15, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-25412 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2700 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Ammonium polyphosphate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Ammonium 

polyphosphate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMMONIUM POLYPHOSPHATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Ammonium polyphosphate 

(CAS No. 68333–79–9) (provided for in subheadings 

3824.90.92 and 2835.39.50) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2700 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
_________________ 

_________________ 

Cite as: 555 U. S. ____ (2008) 1 

STEVENS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 08A471 

ELDON VAIL, SECRETARY OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. v.

DAROLD R. J. STENSON

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY OF EXECUTION 

[December 3, 2008] 

The application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington on November 25, 

2008, presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to 

the Court, is granted. 

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins, 

concurring. 

On November 21, 2008, the Thurston County Superior

Court denied respondent’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the State from executing respondent until the court considered respondent’s

constitutional challenge to the State’s lethal injection 

protocol. Rebuffed by the state court, respondent immediately filed an identical constitutional challenge under Rev.

Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and

moved for a preliminary injunction. The District Court 

concluded that a stay of execution was warranted to allow 

the state court sufficient time to fully and fairly consider

the merits of respondent’s constitutional claim. In my 

view, the entry of the stay was improper. The state court 

decided under state law that the execution could proceed 

while respondent’s constitutional claim was pending. 

Accordingly, the District Court should not have entered a 
2 VAIL v. STENSON 

STEVENS, J., concurring 

stay to give the state court additional time it decided was 

not warranted. In light of that procedural error, and on

that basis alone, I vote to grant the application to vacate 

the stay of execution entered by the District Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 904 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 904

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2005

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, New Jersey, as the ``Brian 
                  P. Parrello Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. BRIAN P. PARRELLO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, New Jersey, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Brian P. 
Parrello Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate June 29, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
No. 618.

#### Fretwell *v.*Peoples Service Drug Stores, Inc.

February 2, 1942.

314 U. S. 670.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: LATASHA DENELL MITCHELL, 

Debtor, 

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

LATASHA RICHARDSON, AKA LaTasha 

Denell Mitchell, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 

Appellee.

No. 22-60040 

BAP No.21-1265 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Taylor, Lafferty III, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted October 18, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

OCT 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-60040 

LaTasha Richardson appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) 

decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her April 2021 motion for 

contempt sanctions against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Reviewing the BAP’s decision de novo and 

the bankruptcy court’s order for abuse of discretion, see In re Taggart, 980 F.3d 

1340, 1347 (9th Cir. 2020), we affirm.

Richardson argues that SPS improperly litigated in state court because the 

bankruptcy court stayed its remand order before the order took effect. To be sure, 

a remand order “is not self-executing.” Bucy v. Nev. Constr. Co., 125 F.2d 213, 

217 (9th Cir. 1942). Jurisdiction does not transfer to the state court until it receives 

“[a] certified copy of the order of remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Seedman v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Once a [federal] 

court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction . . . .”).

However, Richardson forfeited her right to challenge SPS’s conduct because 

SPS was merely responding to her attempt to undo the state court’s adverse 

summary judgment ruling. See Bucy, 125 F.2d at 218–19; cf. Roman Cath. 

Archdiocese v. Acevedo Feliciano, 140 S. Ct. 696, 700 (2020) (per curiam) 

(explaining that parties may defend their interests in state court when the state 

court proceeds on a removed case despite lacking jurisdiction).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Company's  audited  financial  statements for the fiscal year ended December 31,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<CURRENCY>                      U.S. Dollars 

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1      
<CASH>                                           2,338,552
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,378,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,645,556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,598,118
<PP&E>                                             409,938
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,771,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,304,602
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         50,709
<COMMON>                                            62,357
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,353,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,771,571
<SALES>                                          9,208,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,208,594
<CGS>                                            2,155,835
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,155,835
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54,638
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,794,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        21,218
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,816,029)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,816,029)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.29)
        


</TABLE>
No. 644.

#### Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *v.*Cement Investors, Inc.; Helvering, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *v.*James Q. Newton Trust; and Helvering, Commissioner, of Internal Revenue, *v.*Newton.

No. 645.

No. 646.

See *post,*p. 825.
----

----

**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**

| (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. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Desmond OLLIVIERRE, a/k/a James Franklin Bridges, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4042.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2006.

Decided: June 28, 2006.

John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, Kevin F. McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Desmond Ollivierre was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and originally sentenced to 225 months imprisonment. Ollivierre’s sentence was later vacated and remanded for resentencing in accordance with *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005),. and *United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir.2005). On remand, the district court resentenced him to 210 months imprisonment. Ollivierre appeals, claiming that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court refused to depart from the advisory guidelines range, which took into account the 100:1 crack to powder cocaine ratio.

After the Supreme Court’s decision in *Booker,*a sentencing court is no longer bound by the range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. *See Hughes,*401 F.3d at 546. However, in determining a sentence *post-Booker,*sentencing courts are still required to calculate and consider the applicable guideline range as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp.2006). *Id.*If the sentence imposed is within the properly calculated guideline range, it is presumptively reasonable. *United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 456 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2309, 164 L.Ed.2d 828 (2006).

Ollivierre’s sentence was both within the properly-calculated guideline range of 210-262 months, and within the statutory maximum of life imprisonment. *See*21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (2000). Moreover, we have recently considered and rejected a post-*Booker*challenge to the 100:1 crack to powder cocaine ratio contained in the sentencing guidelines. *See United States v. Euro,*440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir.2006). Because the district court appropriately treated the guidelines as advisory, and properly calculated and considered the guideline range and the relevant § 3553(a) factors, we find the sentence reasonable.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *356the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*