alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1"Partnerships” generally involve agreements to share profits

and losses. I assume that the term “partner” in Parker was used in

some analogous sense. To the extent that payment of expenses and

hiring and training of officers with county funds arguably makes

the county a “partner,” it would appear to be equally applicable to

law enforcement activities.

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

PROPST, District Judge, concurring specially:

I concur in Judge Cox’s well-reasoned opinion. I write

separately only to address the opinion in Parker v. Williams, 862

F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1989).

I recognize that Parker v. Williams apparently holds that

Alabama counties and sheriffs are “partners” in the operation of

jails. I do not agree that Alabama law provides a reasonable basis

for such a holding. I respectfully suggest that sheriffs and

counties have independent obligations with reference to jails. The

counties’ sole responsibilities, under Alabama law, relate to the

jail facilities. 

I find no Alabama law which gives counties any authority to

run or operate jails. Under Alabama law, the sole authority for

“running” or operating jails and hiring jailors is placed with

sheriffs. In my opinion, the mere fact that counties provide jail

facilities and funds for salaries, etc. does not make them

“partners” of the sheriff in the operation of jails.1 Counties

have no more “control” over the “running” or operation of jails

than they have over law enforcement by the sheriffs. Sheriffs also

“hire and train” law enforcement officers with county funds. My

full reasoning is addressed in Turquitt v. Jefferson County, 

F.Supp. , (N.D. Ala. Jan. 19, 1996).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 29, 2015

No. 04-15-00445-CR

Jeremiah HINDMAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR11660B

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on July 29, 2015.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of July, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40627 

Conference Calendar

 

JERRY E. EASLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-CV-332

- - - - - - - - - -

February 11, 1999

Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Jerry E. Easley, # 421286, appeals the district court’s

denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. He argues that his

due process and equal protection claims are now ripe because his

word processor is not working. The word-processor claim was no

longer before the district court when it entered the current

dismissal order. The district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying his motion for reconsideration on that basis. 
No. 98-40627

-2-

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc., 38 F.3d 1404,

1408 (5th Cir. 1994).

Easley also argues that the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing his case as frivolous without service of

summons after he paid a partial filing fee pursuant to Grissom v.

Scott, 934 F.2d 656 (5th Cir. 1991). Easley filed this complaint

on July 3, 1996, after the effective date of the PLRA. Grissom

no longer applies. This argument lacks merit.

Easley argues that the district court failed to comply with

this court’s direction in its opinion remanding the case to

further develop the facts of his retaliation claim. The district

court found that Easley had agreed to settle all of his then

pending retaliation claims on December 6, 1996, and that he had

made misrepresentations to the Fifth Circuit about the continued

viability of those claims. Easley does not make any argument in

his appellate brief challenging the district court’s finding that

he had already settled those claims.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's order

and find no issue of arguable merit. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

We caution Easley that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Easley is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court.
No. 98-40627

-3-

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division.

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal charter and filing letters.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-462, a renewal charter has been filed for the IRS Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (ACT). The renewal charter was filed on June 16, 2009, with the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate, the Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Library of Congress. The renewal charter and copies of these filing letters are attached.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Advisory Committee on Tax Exempt and Government Entities (ACT), governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, is an organized public forum for discussion of relevant employee plans, exempt organizations, tax-exempt bonds, and Federal, State, local, and Indian tribal government issues between officials of the IRS and representatives of the above communities. The ACT also enables the IRS to receive regular input with respect to the development and implementation of IRS policy concerning these communities. ACT members present the interested public's observations about current or proposed IRS policies, programs, and procedures, as well as suggest improvements.

Dated: June 18, 2009.

Steven J. Pyrek,

Designated Federal Official, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Internal Revenue Service.

[FR Doc. E9-14931 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roosevelt Jennings, Appellant.

Submitted July 23, 2012;

decided August 28, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7502

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AHMED MALACHI ABDEL-AZIZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:00-cr-00075-F)

Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 4, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis M. Duffy,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ahmed Malachi Abdel-Aziz appeals the district court’s

order denying his motion for “Relief Pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4).” We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. United States v. Abdel-Aziz, No.

7:00-cr-00075-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 24 & 25, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on May 6, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or

reverse your judgment between

Leola Stuart, Appellant

V.

Estelita Judson, Appellee

No. 04-14-00380-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 391869

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 15, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00380-CV

Leola Stuart

v.

Estelita Judson

(NO. 391869 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

REPORTER'S RECORD

FILING

CLERK'S RECORD

$137.50

$195.00

$80.00

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

N/A - INDIGENT

N/A

N/A

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this July 15, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
**Exhibit      32.2**

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

|                                                                                                                                                 |        |                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                 |   |                                                |   |
| Date:                      May 15,                  2007             |        | /s/ Arthur                W. Budich            |   |
|                                                                                                                                                 |   | Arthur                W. Budich                     |   |
|                                                                                                                                                 |   | Chairman                and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                                                                                                                 |   |                                                |   |
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  ONLINE  ORIGINALS,  INC.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended May 31,  2010,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Shari
Sookarookoff,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (a)  The Report 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 Company.



Date:    July 15, 2010


By:      /s/ Shari Sookarookoff
         ----------------------
         Shari Sookarookoff
         President/Chief Executive Officer
         and Chief Financial (Accounting) Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,James S. Brown certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the AnnualReport of WorldWater & Power Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the annualperiod ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operation ofWorldWater & Power Corp.

|        | By:    | /s/ JAMES S.  BROWN                               |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | James S. Brown                                    |
|   | Title: | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: April 14, 2006

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSBpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporatesit by reference.

End of Filing

----
#### Ralph E. ROSENLUND, Plaintiff, v. TRANSNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, and E. B. Crittenden, Defendants.

Civ. No. 64-379.

United States District Court D. Oregon.

Nov. 3, 1964.

Robert A. Leedy, Barzee, Leedy & 'Tassock, Portland, Or., for plaintiff.

Donald H. Pearlman, Keane, Haessler, Bauman & Harper, Portland, Or., for defendant Transnational.

Howard K. Beebe, Maguire, Shields, Morrison, Bailey & Kester, Portland, Or., for defendant E. B. Crittenden.

KILKENNY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, in his complaint, charges that defendant Crittenden, acting for and in behalf of defendant Transnational, wilfully and maliciously defamed the plaintiff by speaking and publishing, in the state of Oregon, defamatory words concerning plaintiff on at least three occasions. The alleged defamatory words were uttered in connection with Crittenden’s transaction of business in the state of Oregon for Transnational.

Crittenden’s motion to quash the service of process in the state of California, challenges the jurisdiction of this court over his person. Defendant has never been a resident or a citizen of the state of Oregon. He is a resident of the state of California and the process was served on him in that state. His affidavit indicates that he has no property of any kind located in the state of Oregon.

Plaintiff claims jurisdiction under ORS 14.035, as made applicable to actions in federal courts under F.R.Civ. P. 4(e) and 4(f). The Oregon legislation is set forth in a footnote to Hiersche v. Seamless Rubber Co., 9 Cir., 225 F.Supp. 682, 684, a decision of this court announced on November 21, 1963. It is my belief that the court has jurisdiction under either, or both, of the following provisions of the Oregon statute.

> “(a) The transaction of any business within the state;

> “(b) The commission of a tortious act within this state; * *

Furthermore, the legislation, as bearing on the facts of this case, is not unconstitutional.

The court has jurisdiction. The motion to quash is denied.

It is so ordered.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ENOCH SMITH,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 174 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
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 LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chris A.
Walker, Chief Financial 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 220, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 15, 2008



/s/ Chris A. WalkerChris A. WalkerChief Financial Officer
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

TO THE 227TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on May 13, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Dianna Wyrick Rodriguez aka Dianna Emmarose Ring, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04-15-00187-CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2013CR6190

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
Order filed April 17, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________

NO. 14-12-00359-CV

____________

IN RE HEB GROCERY COMPANY, LP, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

165th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-40738

O R D E R

On April 16, 2012, relator, HEB Grocery Company, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. Relator asks this court to order The 

Honorable Josefina M. Rendon, Judge of the 165th District Court, Harris County, Texas, to 

set aside her order dated April 4, 2012, entered in trial court cause number 2011-40738, 

styled Rebecca Lara v. HEB Grocery Company, LP, d/b/a Houston 42-Gulfgate HEB. 

Relator claims the order is void, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering discovery.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition that relator’s request for relief requires 

further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief 

is granted. See Tex. R. App. p. 52.8(b), 52.10.
2

We therefore ORDER that the April 4, 2012, order of the court below be stayed with 

respect to those portions that require relator to produce discovery in trial court cause 

number 2011-40738, styled Rebecca Lara v. HEB Grocery Company, LP, d/b/a Houston 

42-Gulfgate HEB. Such order is stayed until final decision by this court of relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus, or until further orders of this court.

A response to the petition for writ of mandamus is requested and due within 14 

days of the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 32  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 Interim Report of Lexington Energy Services Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kelly Warrack, Chief Financial 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/ Kelly Warrack ---------------------- Kelly Warrack Chief Financial Officer  October 20, 2008