alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50286 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

EDISON SANCHEZ CAICEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas

(A-96-CV-011)

April 8, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edison Sanchez Caicedo appeals the district court’s denial of

his motion to vacate, set aside

, or correct his sentence, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Caicedo contends that the district court

erred in finding he had not demonstrated that he r eceived

ineffective assistance of counsel and in refusing to order an

evidentiary hearing prior to denying his motion. Caicedo also

argues that he was not required to obtain a Certificate ofAppealability
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000824840
<NAME> ADVANTAGE LIFE PRODUCTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,540,826
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       149,449
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,690,275)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6612

WILLIAM H. SCOTT, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-971-2)

Submitted: February 3, 1998 Decided: February 18, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William H. Scott, III, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,

Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Scott v. Angelone, No. CA-96-971-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 1997).

We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rafael Rodriguez, Appellant, v William Lee, Respondent.

Submitted March 18, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*20 NY3d 861 (2013)].

Judge Rivera taking no part.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14129]

[[Page 28285]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

Sunshine Act; Notice of Agency Meeting

Time and Date: 10 a.m., Thursday, June 18, 2009.

Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status: Open.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Interim Final Rule--Section 701.21(f) of NCUA's Rules and 
Regulations, Exception to the Maturity Limit on Second Mortgages.
    2. Final Rule --Section 701.26 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, 
Operating Fees.
    3. Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund.
    4. Insurance Fund Report.

Recess: 11 a.m.

Time and Date: 11:15 a.m., Thursday, June 18, 2009.

Place: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Insurance Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).
    2. Consideration of Supervisory Activities (3). Closed pursuant to 
Exemptions (8) and (9)(A)(ii) and 9(B).
    3. Personnel. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (2) and (6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14129 Filed 6-11-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3567 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3567

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey 
                   L. Wiener Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. NAVY CORPSMAN JEFFREY L. WIENER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener 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 ``Navy 
Corpsman Jeffrey L. Wiener Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate July 30, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3567

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 100 Broadway in Lynbrook, New York, as the ``Navy Corpsman Jeffrey 
                   L. Wiener Post Office Building''.
```
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  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
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-E  ("Issuer") for the period
ending  September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 20th day of November, 2006.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-E
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-E and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-E and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 4814.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### MRS. SOPHIE ABRAHAM vs. J. B. ALEXANDER.

Mrs. Jessy Benedict Cessner for plaintiff and appellee.

Jas. J. McLoughlin for defendant and appellant.

DUFOUR, J

The plaintiff, universal legatee of the late Thomas Alexander, sues the latter’s uncle for rents alleged to have been collected by Him and not accounted for. and, also, for the avails of a life insurance policy for $125, paid to him by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

The policy was taken by Thomas Alexander on his own life, and did not name any specific beneficiary. One of its «lauses provides that ‘ ‘ the company may pay the amount due under this policy to any relative by blood or connection by marriage of the insured, or to any other person appearing to said company to be eqfiitably entitled to the same by reason of having incurred expense on behalf of the insured, or for his or her burial, and the production of a receipt signed by either of said persons shall be conclu*7sive evidence that all claims under this policy have been satisfied.”

November 29, 1909.

Rehearing refused December 13, 1909.

Writ refused by Supreme Court, January 24,1910.

The. policy in question is of the kind known as indus: trial insurance; it is for a small amount and in consideration of the payment of small weekly premium installments.

Where no beneficiary is named, the ownership of the policy at the death of the assured becomes vested in his succession and passes to his universal legatee.

It is apparent that the clause above quoted was intended merely to protect the company from erroneous payment in good faith and possible consequent litigation, and was not meant to give the insurer the power to choose and designate a beneficiary.

Though the plaintiff may not proceed against the company, she may claim and recover the amount from the one, not entitled to it, who received payment from the insurer.

The judgment properly ordered defendant to pay the same to plaintiff.

As to the rents collected, there is conflict of testimony; we shall adopt the view of the District Judge that defendant accounted satisfactorily for all he had collected.

The claim for the mortuary dividend of $31 cannot be considered; it was not sued on and prayed for in the petition.

Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 116 (Thursday, June 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29013-29014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14344]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6675]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Degas and Music''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of

[[Page 29014]]

October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, 
as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 
FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects in the exhibition: 
``Degas and Music,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at The Hyde Collection, Glens Falls, NY, from on or 
about July 12, 2009, until on or about October 18, 2009 and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to 
be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202-
453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: June 12, 2009.
C. Miller Crouch,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-14344 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
96-2737.

#### Painter v. State Auto Ins. Co.

Franklin App. No. 95APE12-1558. Reported at 78 Ohio St.3d 1424, 676 N.E.2d 531. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., dissents.

Lundberg Stratton, J., not participating.
97-199.

#### Tanner v. Coyle.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer. Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
97-590.

#### State v. Ford.

Clark App. No. 2831. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                      AMERICAN LOCKER GROUP INCORPORATED

                           FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

                              DECEMBER 31, 1997

This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from SEC Form
10-KSB  and  is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to  such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000008855                  
<NAME>                                         AMERICAN LOCKER GROUP INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-30-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-30-1997   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,154,045
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,519,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                     438,784
<INVENTORY>                                    3,636,528 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              10,009,315 
<PP&E>                                         8,516,487 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,267,199 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11,263,725 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,451,220 
<BONDS>                                        2,431,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0 
<PREFERRED>                                            0 
<COMMON>                                         601,445 
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,317,700 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11,263,725 
<SALES>                                       29,295,533 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              29,290,041 
<CGS>                                         20,533,950 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 20,533,950 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0             
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               181,678  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,454,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,342,033
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,112,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,112,475                     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       2.90           
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       2.82           
                                                            
                                              

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael D. Dale, Chief Executive Officer of ATS Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934(15 U.S.C. 78m); andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Date: August 9, 2007                    /s/  Michael D. Dale   Name:  Michael D. Dale   Title:  Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13950]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel, July 20, 2009, 8 
a.m. to July 24, 2009, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, One 
Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was 
published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2009, 74 FR 25262.
    The previously published July 20-24, 2009, meeting has been changed 
to a one day meeting on July 24, 2009. The meeting is closed to the 
public.

    Dated: June 8, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-13950 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Herbert Blatt, Respondent, v L’Pogee, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[978 NYS2d 291]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brathwaite-Nelson, J.), dated July 9, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, a salesperson who was employed by the defendants as an independent contractor, allegedly tripped and fell on a hazardous condition created by another salesperson, an independent contractor retained by the defendants, near the entrance of the defendants’ showroom. As a result, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

As a general rule, a party who engages an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts *(see Kleeman v Rheingold,*81 NY2d 270, 273 [1993]). One of the exceptions to this general rule is the “nondelegable duty exception, which is applicable where the party ‘is under a duty to keep premises safe’ ” *(Backiel v Citibank,*299 AD2d 504, 505 [2002], quoting *Rosenberg v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S.,*79 NY2d 663, 668 [1992]). Whenever the general public is invited into stores, office buildings, and other places of public assembly, “the owner of such premises is charged with the duty to provide members of the general public with a reasonably safe premises, including a safe means of ingress and egress” *(Thomassen v J & K Diner,*152 AD2d 421, 424 [1989]; *see Podlaski v Long Is. Paneling Ctr. of Centereach, Inc.,*58 AD3d 825, 826 [2009]; *LoGiudice v Silverstein Props., Inc.,*48 AD3d 286, 287 [2008]; *Backiel v Citibank,*299 AD2d at 505; *Richardson v Schwager Assoc.,*249 AD2d 531 [1998]).

Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence submitted in support of the motion, including the deposition testimony of the parties, did not demonstrate, prima facie, that *870the incident did not occur in a public area or that the plaintiff was not a person protected under the nondelegable duty exception (s*ee Backiel v Citibank,*299 AD2d 504 [2002]). The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Since the defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it is not necessary to review the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Dickerson, J.E, Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.
*Wednesday, May 7, 1997*

RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

97-184.

#### Taylor v. McCullough-Hyde Mem. Hosp.

Butler App. No. CA96-02-032. On April 29, 1997, appellee, Eugene P. Durbin, M.D., filed a memorandum opposing motion for reconsideration that was due April 28,1997. Whereas S.Ct.Prac.R. XIY(1)(C) prohibits the filing of an untimely memorandum opposing motion for reconsideration,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellee’s memorandum opposing motion for reconsideration be, and hereby is, stricken.