alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T V A R D A N P E T R O S Y A N ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74335 A ge nc yN os . A 076- 357- 482

A 076- 357- 483 A 076- 357- 484 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dT H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. V a r dan P e tr os y an and f a m i l y , na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of A rm e ni a , pe t i t i on f

or r e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n ba s e d on i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e of

c ouns e l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on



# FI LED JAN 06 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74335 2 p u r s u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . R e v ie w in g f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , Si ng h v. G on zales , 491 F . 3d 1090, 1095 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , w e de nyi n parta nd gr anti n partthe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g p e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to r e ope n a s unt i m e l ybe c aus e the m ot i on w a s f i l e d m or e than s i x y e ar s a f t e rthe B I A ’s Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , o r d e rd is m is s in g th e u n d e r ly in g ap p e a l, se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2) ( m ot i on t o reopen m ustgeneral l y be f i l ed w i thi n 9 0 d ay s of the fi nal a d m in is tr a tiv e o r d e r ) , an dp e titio n e r s f a ile dto e s tab lis h g r o u n d s f o re q u itab le to llin g , s e e Si ngh , 4 9 1 F .3 da t 1 0 9 6 - 9 7 . B ecau se th e B IA fai l edt o ad d ress p et i t i o n ers’ req u estth atth e B IA ex erci se i t s s ua spon t e autho ri ty t o reopen p roce edi ng s, w e r em and for the B IA t o con si der p e titio n e r s ’ r e q u e s t in th e f ir s t in s tan c e . See M

on tes -L op ezv. G on zales , 486 F . 3d 11 63 , 11 65 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). E a c h p artys h a l l b e ari t s o wn c o s t s f o rth i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; G R A N T E D i n p art; RE MAND E D.
*Pursuant to 5

TH 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.

 

1

 336 U.S. 738 (1967).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10162

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL RAPAPPORT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CR-102-4-D)

August 17, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Michael Rapapport has filed a brief asrequired

by Anders v. California,

1

and moved to withdraw. Rapapport sought leave to

proceed pro se. Counsel’s motion was granted, excusing him from further

responsibilities herein, and Rapapport was given 30 days in which to file a brief,

should he opt to do so, raising any matter he deemed relevant to his appeal. The
2

time allowed has expired and no such filing has been made.

Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue which may be presented herein. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00609

- CV

BREAKFRONT, LLC ; Golde n Oak Partners, LLC; Mark Slotkin, Individually, and as Trustee

of the Slotkin Family Children’s Trust dtd January 1, 1997

,

Appellants

v.

SOUTHWEST GUARANTY INVESTORS, LTD

.,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 04

- 0331

- CVA Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants’ motion for reconsideration of denial of oral argument is denied

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 22nd day of November, 2 016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
1Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-40671

Summary Calendar

ANTHONY LINDON BETHEL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JIMMIE E. ALFORD, ET AL,

Defendants,

JIMMIE E. ALFORD,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:93-CV-186)

February 6, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, District Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice prisoner,

sued nearly fifty defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and applied to

proceed in forma pauperis. His application was denied. Only one

defendant was served. That defendant answered and moved for

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) which
2

motion was granted. Later the district court also dismissed all

remaining defendants for lack of service. Appellant then moved for

relief under Rule 60(b)(6) which was denied, except that the

district court modified the dismissal of the unserved defendants to

be without prejudice. Appellant seeks to appeal all of the actions

of the district court. We find the appeal frivolous and dismiss.

Appellant’s notice of appeal is timely only with respect to

the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. We therefore

have jurisdiction to review that matter only. We find no abuse of

discretion in the denial of that motion and affirm it.

Appellant’s brief in this court is largely incomprehensible.

He does not specifically address how the district court allegedly

abused its discretion in denying his motion and does not adequately

argue any point raised. 

Appellant sought relief from his obligation to serve all of

the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(c). That

Rule is inapplicable here because it deals only with pleadings

transmitted between defendants, not service by the plaintiff on a

defendant. Clearly the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying relief. 

Appellant is warned that the bringing of further frivolous

appeals will result in the imposition of sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 226 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 226

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         April 9, 2019.
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY AND 
              JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.

    (a) Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.--The following Members are 
hereby elected to the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, to serve with 
the chair of the Committee on House Administration and the chair of the 
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the Committee on Appropriations:
            (1) Mr. Butterfield.
            (2) Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
            (3) Mr. Loudermilk.
    (b) Joint Committee on Printing.--The following Members are hereby elected 
to the Joint Committee on Printing, to serve with the chair of the Committee on 
House Administration:
            (1) Mr. Raskin.
            (2) Mrs. Davis of California.
            (3) Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
            (4) Mr. Loudermilk.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# ORICINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 20-0360
LORRIE CORETTE CAMPBELL, and JILL LOVEN,

Petitioners,
v. MONTANA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY, HONORABLE JAMES P.REYNOLDS, Presiding, Respondent. 

# FILED JUL 1 5 2020

owen Greenwood ::lerk of Supreme Court Stasw nf Montana
ORDER

Petitioners,two Montana voters whosigned apetition toputthe Montana Green Party on the 2020 ballot, filed an emergency petition for writ ofsupervisory control seeking an order to immediately reverse the First Judicial District Court's denial of their motion to intervene,an orderthe court issued from the bench on the opening morning of an evidentiary hearing. The underlying proceeding,Lewisand Clark County CauseNo.CDV-2020-856,is an action brought by the Montana Democratic Party and four other Montana voters that apparently seeks to withdraw the signatures ofnumerous individuals on petitions to qualify the Green Party for the ballot. (The complaint is not before us.) The Defendant in the underlying case is Secretary ofState Corey Stapleton,whose office is defending the action. Petitioners urge this Court's immediate action on the grounds that their fundamental rights are at stake in the case and that no other party to the proceeding represents their interests. Petitioners have presented the Court with their intervention motion and briefs to the District Court and with the Plaintiffs' response. Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when urgency or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate,the case involves 07/15/2020

Case Number: OP 20-0360purely legal questions,and one or more ofthe three following circumstancesexist: the other

court is proceeding under a mistake oflaw and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide importance are involved, or the other court has granted or denied a motion for substitution ofa judge in a criminal case. M.R. App.P. 14(3). Exercise of supervisory control is discretionary. On review ofthe Petitioners' submissions, the Court concludes that the petition is insufficient on its face to demonstrate thatthe DistrictCourtis acting underapure mistake of law or that a gross injustice will result, particularly given that the Plaintiffs' brief below indicated they did not object to Petitioners' participation as amicus curiae. The petition as presented does not satisfy the M. R. App. P. 14(3) criteria for invoking this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction to review the District Court's interlocutory ruling. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED thatthe Petition for a WritofSupervisory Controlis DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide notice ofthis Order to all counsel ofrecord in the First Judicial District Court's Cause No. CDV-2020-856 and to the Honorable James P. Reynolds,presiding District Court Judge. DATED this day ofJuly, 2020.
ChiefJustice
FLORIDA HOSPITAL ORLANDO , Appellant,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION , Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D 14

- 178

_____________________________/ Opinion filed November 6, 2014. An appeal from an order of the Agency for Health Care Administration

. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary

. John D. Buchanan, Jr. and Joseph V. Gardner of Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber, & Carter, P.A., Tallahassee , for Appellant. Tracy Lee George, Assistant General Counsel, and Cynthia L. Hain, Assistant General Counsel, Agency for Health Care Administration, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. This appea l arises out of a Medicaid integrity audit of Florida Hospital Orlando’s (“Hospital”) inpatient services claims. As a result of the audit, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) determined it had reimbursedthe Hospital for services submitted t o Medicaid which were not “medically
necessary. ” See § 409.913(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2013). After a hearing, AHCA issued a Final Order adopting the administrative law judge’s findings of fact , conclusions of law , and recommendation that the Hospital repay cer tain overpayments , as well as

a small fine and costs

. On appeal, the Hospital asserts that AHCA and its auditor unlawfully reviewed entire patient files to determine whether each patients’ inpatient admission was a “medical necessity , ” without limiting th e audit to just the information that was available to the Hospital at the time that the patient was admitted

. The Hospital asserts that it is unlawful and unfair for AHCA’s auditors to deny reimbursement s based on hindsight analyses of entire patient files , which give greater and better information than was available to the Hospital ’s doctors when they made the real

- time decisions to admit the ir patient s to the hospital

. The Hospital is correct about how “medical necessity” must be determined for purposes of section 409.913(1)(d)

. The statute is perfectly clear that “[d]eterminations of medical necessity

. . . must be based upon information available at the time the goods or services are provided

. ” § 409.913(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added)

. I t gives no r oom for e valuating medical necessity determinations post hoc, using later

- available information “from a post

- discharge standpoint , ” as the Hospital alleges here

.
2Nevertheless , with respect to the fourteen subject patients at issue in this appeal , the Hosp ital has not show n that AHCA and its auditor relied on hindsight information in penalizing the Hospital’s admission decisions

. Rather, the record supports the administrative law judge’s finding adopted by AHCA that the claims were “described and evaluated based upon the medical documentation available to the treating physician at the time the services were rendered.” And so we must affirm.
AFFIRM ED

. WOLF, ROBERTS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

3
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-748

_____________________________

ARNALDO MANCEBO,

Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP and

SEDGWICK SMS,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Office of the Judges of 

Compensation Claims.

Edward R. Almeyda, Judge.

Date of Accident: December 14, 2018.

September 10, 2021

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, B.L. THOMAS, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Bill McCabe, Longwood, for Appellant.

Michael Antonio Hernandez, Miami, Anthony Forte, Fort 

Lauderdale, for Appellees.
Exhibit 23.1















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-118845 and 333-141857) of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company (Blue Ridge) and Big Boulder Corporation (Big Boulder), of our reports, dated February 22, 2010, with respect to the combined financial statements of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the October 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder.



/s/Kronick Kalada Berdy & Co., P.C.







Kingston, Pennsylvania

February 22, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE BALANCE SHEET
AT DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              56
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      701
<ALLOWANCES>                                        63
<INVENTORY>                                         22
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   819
<PP&E>                                          10,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,409
<BONDS>                                          1,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,595
<OTHER-SE>                                        (253)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,096
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,430
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    697
<INCOME-TAX>                                       289
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                408
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     (2)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       406
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                              Accountants' Consent


The Board of Directors
Transpirator Technologies, Inc.
New Brunswick, New Jersey:

We consent to the use of our report dated July 14, 1999 relating to the balance
sheets as of March 31, 1999 and 1998 and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended of Transpirator
Technologies, Inc., in the Annual Report for 1999 on Form 10-KSB of Transpirator
Technologies, Inc.


BRIMMER, BUREK, KEELAN & McNALLY LLP
Tampa, Florida
July 15, 1999
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 241ST DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 20th

day of May, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

GAYLAND DECLOYCE WILLIAMS, Appellant

NO. 12-15-00065-CR; Trial Court No. 241-1607-14

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, 

it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 15th day of July, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-118845) of Blue Ridge Real Estate Company (Blue Ridge) and Big Boulder Corporation (Big Boulder), of our reports, dated January 10, 2005, except for Note 5 and Note 6 paragraph (b), as to which the date is January 27, 2005, with respect to the combined financial statements of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the October 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Blue Ridge and Big Boulder.







/s/ Parente Randolph, P.C.



Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

February 9, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of TaxMasters, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick R. Cox, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ Patrick R. Cox


Patrick R. Cox, Chief Executive Officer


March April 15, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ E8 PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC AND THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTIT UTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiffs

- Appellants
,

v.
AFFYMETRIX, INC. AND NAVIGENICS, INC., Defendants

- Appellees

.

______________________
2013

- 1046

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in consolidated No. 08

- CV

11132 , Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr.

______________________
Decided: November 6, 2013

______________________
J OHN B. W YSS , Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. With him on the brief were J AMES H. W ALLACE , J R ., M ARK A. P ACELLA , and G REGORY R. L YONS

.
P ETER E. R OOT , Kaye Scholer LLP, of Palo Alto, Cal ifornia, argued for defendants

- appellees. With him on the brief were M ICHAEL J. M ALECEK , S EAN M. B OYLE , and G ARY R OSS A LLEN

.E 8 PHARMACEUTICALS , LLC v. AFFYMETRIX , INC

. 2

______________________
Before L OU RIE , D YK , and O’M ALLEY , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. We affirm the judgment of noninfringement in favor of Affymetrix, Inc. and Navigenics, Inc. We base our decision solely on our agreement with the district court’s construction of the phrase “randomly primed PCR

- derived RCG.” We do not reach any other issues raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED
The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 15, 2015

No. 04-15-00277-CR

John Forrest LOWE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B10794

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief is granted. We order appellant’s 

brief due August 3, 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 15th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court