alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22

- 20520

**____________ Venequip, S.A.,** 
Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus **Mustang Machinery Company, L.L.C.,** Respondent

— Appellee

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21

- MC

- 2391

**______________________________** Before **Dennis ,**  **Engelhardt ,**  and **Oldham ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Th is appeal concerns 28 U.S.C. § 1782 , which “seeks to facilitate third

- party discovery in American district courts, from subjects that reside or are found in the district, in aid of ‘interested parties’ in ‘foreign proceedings.’” Banca Pueyo SA v. Lone Star Fund IX (US), L.P. , 55 F.4th 469, 473 (5th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). Appellant Venequip , S.A. (“Venequip”) challenges the district court’s denial of its § 1782 application ,

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 7, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-20520 Document: 00516848346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2023No. 22

- 20520

2 wherein it sought an order requiring appellee Mustang Machinery Company, L

. L

. C

. (“Mustang”) to produce certain discovery located in the United States for use in a Swiss action to which Mustang is not a party

. Having review ed the briefs, record, and opinion of the district court, and having heard oral argument , we see no reversable error of law. **A FFIRMED** 

. See **5 TH**  **C IR** 
**. R.**  **47.6**

. Case: 22-20520 Document: 00516848346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2023
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated:  May  15, 2007 | By: /s/ Michael Mc Chesney |
|-----------------------|----------------------------|

|   | ----------------------------------- |
|--------|-------------------------------------|

|   | MICHAEL MCCHESNEY |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
S05A0903.

#### ODOM v. THE STATE.

(619 SE2d 636)

Melton, Justice.

James Stewart Odom was convicted of malice murder, aggravated assault, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime in connection with the stabbing death of Buford Evans, and he was also convicted of theft by conversion of a car belonging to Beverly Conway.1 He appeals pursuant to the grant of his motion for an out-of-time appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the crimes committed against Evans only. Finding no error, we affirm. The jury was authorized to find from the evidence adduced at trial that Odom borrowed a car from a friend. When he did not return with the car, the friend swore out a warrant. *600While searching for the vehicle, the police ultimately discovered that, on the day of the crimes, Odom and his co-defendant, Bobby Gray, had been smoking crack cocaine and drinking until their money ran out. Odom and Gray then drove to Evans’s home. While there, Evans was stabbed to death and his wallet and checkbook were stolen. Odom and Gray then spent the stolen money on more drugs.

Decided September 19, 2005.

*Patricia F. Angelí,*for appellant.

*Jewel C. Scott, District Attorney, Todd E. Naugle, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Frank M. Gaither, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

Although Odom admits to being at the victim’s home and sustaining an injury to his hand from the knife used to kill the victim, he claims that the crimes were committed solely by Gray. Based on this contention, Odom argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. “Every person concerned in the commission of a crime [, however,] is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime.” OCGA § 16-2-20 (a). Therefore, contrary to Odom’s assertion, there was ample evidence adduced that he either committed the crimes or was a party to the crimes, see OCGA § 16-2-20 (b), and the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The homicide occurred sometime between November 9 and November 13, 2001. Odom and his co-defendant were indicted in the February 2003 term in Clayton County. A jury found Odom guilty on all counts except felony murder on September 12, 2003. He was sentenced on September 26, 2003 to life imprisonment for the malice murder, a consecutive ten years for armed robbery, a consecutive five years on the possession charge, and five years concurrent for theft. His motion for an out-of-time appeal, filed November 17, 2004, was granted January 26, 2005. A notice of appeal was filed January 31, 2005. The appeal was docketed February 16, 2005 and submitted for decision on the briefs.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 22, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-1932

Lower Tribunal No. 14-MH-127-K

________________

Cody Hogue,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Richard J. Fowler,

Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and John Eddy Morrison, Assistant

Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Shane Weaver, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Before SHEPHERD, EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.
Given that there is competent, substantial evidence in the record regarding

the Defendant’s mental illness, the trial court correctly entered the order for

involuntary inpatient placement in an effort to provide the Defendant with the care

he needed. See Burley v. State, 59 So. 3d 131, 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding

“that there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings

and involuntary commitment pursuant to the Baker Act,” but “revers[ing] the order

under review and remand[ing] to allow the parties’ attorneys to make closing

arguments.”). The trial court’s judgment of commitment is accordingly affirmed.

2
Opinion filed July 8, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00068-CV

__________

RANDY MULKEY, Appellant

V.

IGNACIO DE LOS SANTOS ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-122,838

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Randy Mulkey has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. In his motion, 

Mulkey states that the parties have resolved their differences. The motion is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

July 8, 2010

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
IV 

House Calendar No. 64 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 772 

[Report No. 116–357] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5377) to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the limitation on deduction of State 

and local taxes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2019 

Mrs. TORRES, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5377) to amend 

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the limitation on deduction of State and local taxes, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 5377) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

4 modify the limitation on deduction of State and local 

5 taxes, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

6 consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 772 RH 

1 the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee 

2 on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be consid3 ered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered 

4 as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 

5 as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 

6 considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 

7 further amendment thereto, to final passage without inter8 vening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally di9 vided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 

10 member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) 

11 one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 64 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 772 

[Report No. 116–357] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5377) 

local taxes, and for other purposes. modify the limitation on deduction of State and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

DECEMBER 19, 2019 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1




                         Consent of Independent Auditors



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-82224) pertaining to the National Medical Health Card Systems,
Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan of our report dated  September 5, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of National Medical Health
Card Systems,  Inc. and  subsidiaries  included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended June 30, 2003.


                                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


     Melville, New York
     September 29, 2003


<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT




To the Board of Directors
National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc.


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  registration
statement of National  Medical  Health Card Systems,  Inc. on Form S-8 (file No.
333-82224)  of our report dated August 31, 2001, on the  consolidated  financial
statements of National Medical Health Card Systems,  Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
June 30, 2001 and for the year then ended appearing in the annual report on Form
10-K of National  Medical Health Card Systems,  Inc. for the year ended June 30,
2003.




GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

September 29, 2003
EXHIBIT
32.1











CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code)







Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of National Datacomputer, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form
10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
March 27, 2009




/s/  William B.
Berens


William
B. Berens


President
and Chief Executive Officer







Dated:
March 27, 2009




/s/ Bruna
Bucacci


Bruna
Bucacci


Chief
Accounting Officer









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.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 16, 2021

No. 04-20-00311-CV

Margaret Fay GUIDRY,

Appellant

v.

Edward James GUIDRY, Jr.,

Appellee

From the 452nd District Court, Menard County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-05589

James L. Rex, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Retained counsel for appellee, Shain V.H. Chapman, has filed a motion to withdraw 

which complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 6.5(a), (b). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that the 

appellee’s brief is due to be filed in this court within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. 

If appellee fails to file a brief, or a motion for extension of time in compliance with TEX. R. APP.

P. 10.5(b)(1), this appeal will be set at issue without the benefit of an appellee’s brief.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of September, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


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

______________________
CAROL ANN W. DOWNS, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERA NS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

______________________

2014

- 3218

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. PH

- 1221

- 13

- 0565 -W- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Carol Ann W. Downs moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is denied. The docketing fee of $500 must be paid within 30 days of the date of filing of this order. Case: 14-3218 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2014DOWNS v. DVA 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court Case: 14-3218 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2014
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 812 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 812

     Making a technical correction to the SFC Sean Cooley and SPC 
 Christopher Horton Congressional Gold Star Family Fellowship Program 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2020

 Ms. Lofgren submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Making a technical correction to the SFC Sean Cooley and SPC 
 Christopher Horton Congressional Gold Star Family Fellowship Program 
                                  Act.

    Resolved, That section 2(d) of House Resolution 107 (agreed to 
October 29, 2019) is amended by striking ``or sibling of'' and 
inserting ``parent, or sibling of''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND OF

PHILADELPHIA AND VICINITY and

TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE

FUND OF PHILADELPHIA AND

VICINITY,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN HELPER, INC.,

 Defendant.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 11-624 (JBS/JS)

ORDER FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Amended

Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant [Docket Item 13];

and there being no filing of any kind by Defendant after

default that was duly entered on March 30, 2011; and the Court

having reviewed moving papers and for good cause shown pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 55(b);

IT IS, this 5th day of October, 2011, hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is

GRANTED and JUDGMENT be entered in favor of Plaintiffs on all

counts of the Complaint; and it is further

ORDERED that JUDGMENT be ENTERED in the amount of

$8,871.26 which includes $6,004.22 in liquidated damages,

$2,330.00 in attorney fees and $537.04 in costs in favor of

Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity

Case 1:11-cv-00624-JBS-JS Document 15 Filed 10/05/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 74
and Teamsters Pension Fund of Philadelphia Vicinity against the

Defendant American Helper, Inc.

 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE

U.S. District Judge

2

Case 1:11-cv-00624-JBS-JS Document 15 Filed 10/05/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 75
#### Chaim Shlome Jakabovics et al., Appellants, v Joseph Rosenberg, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 643]

*696The infant plaintiff sustained personal injuries when he was struck by the defendant’s motor vehicle when the defendant was backing out of his driveway. After commencing this action, the plaintiff mother of the infant plaintiff moved, on their behalf, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The evidence submitted in support of the motion, consisting, inter alia, of the defendant’s deposition testimony in which he testified that he was proceeding at less than five miles per hour, looking in all of the car’s mirrors and looking backward, as he backed the vehicle out of the driveway, failed to establish a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). “Failure to make such prima facie showing requires a denial” of that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” *(id.*at 324). Fisher, J.P., Miller, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.
#### Angela Rotondi et al., Respondents, v Gerald Rao et al., Respondents, and Alessandro Curatolo et al., Appellants.

[855 NYS2d 156]

*521The plaintiff Angela Rotondi was injured in a collision involving a vehicle operated by the defendant Gerald Rao, in which she was a passenger, and a vehicle operated by the defendant Alessandro Curatolo and owned by the defendant Frank Curatolo. The accident occurred at the intersection of 16th Avenue and 68th Street in Brooklyn. It is undisputed that the Rao vehicle, which was proceeding along 68th Street, was faced with a stop sign at the intersection, while there was no traffic control device for the Curatolo vehicle, which was proceeding along 16th Avenue. A driver with the right-of-way has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid a collision *(see Cox v Nunez,*23 AD3d 427 [2005]). Moreover, there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident *(id.*at 427). In this case, the deposition testimony adduced from the defendant Alessandro Curatolo did not eliminate all issues of fact as to whether he was operating his vehicle in excess of the speed limit, and, if so, as to whether such conduct contributed to the accident *(see Romano v 202 Corp.,*305 AD2d 576, 577 [2003]). Therefore, the evidence submitted by the defendants Alessandro Curatolo and Frank Curatolo in support of their cross motion failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the opposition papers submitted by the respondents *(id.*at 324). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,997
<SECURITIES>                                    22,949
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,972
<ALLOWANCES>                                       504
<INVENTORY>                                      5,697
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,216
<PP&E>                                          15,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (9,937)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,641
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,968
<SALES>                                         25,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,923
<CGS>                                            3,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17,177)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,177)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.59)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1090891
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   184722
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1278705
<PP&E>                                        19041247
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5019205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                23610290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           442353
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    19353669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  23610290
<SALES>                                         266798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3085523
<CGS>                                            24774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   220091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                650902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              150828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2038928
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2038928
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2038928
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    34.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    34.39
        

</TABLE>