alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

## JUN 

## i 52010 Clerk. U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts forthe District of Columbia 

### Derian Douglas Hickman, Plaintiff, 

### v. U.S. Attorney General Texas Child Support et aI., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# 10 

# 1005

The plaintiff, Derian Douglas Hickman, filed a pro se complaint**~md** applicationto proceed without prepayment offees. Hickman's application to proceedwithoutprepayment of fees will be granted, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous, and the plaintiffwill be directed to show cause in writing why he should not be prospectivelybarred from filing without prepayment offees. Hickman, knownto this court from prior frivolous and otherwise defective filings, has filed the instant complaint against the United States Attorney General Texas Child Support, the Federal Election Commission, and the "Supreme Court ofthe United States in Washington, D.C." CompI. at 1. In its entirety, the complaint alleges as follows: Rquesting verification ofprevious elections as governor. Freedom liberty and Independence party elections. Nominations for president ofthe United States ofAmerica and Federal Election Commission filings involving eJlection as D.C. councilman[,] D.C. Commissioner also. Requesting Supreme court return property, cruise ships, space shuttle, submarine, aircraft, homes, money, land, other property. And documents. All courttranscript should be provided free with a fee waiver request. And also request to be at trial or hearing to establish paternity for the 2 children the defaultjudgmentwas entered against me. A reduction in amount due and verification ofprevious child trust in excess of 1million to 100 million. Requesting a trial byjury. Asking for amount due[,] documents. Compi. at 1. Such a complaint not only fails to meetthe minimumrequirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, but also appears to be based on fantastic and delusional premises. Complaints describing fantastic or delusional scenarios are subjectto immediate dismissal as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989); Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Accordingly, this complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Including this one, the plaintiffhas filed 17 complaints since February of2009, each of which warranted immediate dismissal, either because it did not meetthe minimum requirements ofRule 8 or because it was frivolous. This pattern offiling results in an unwarranted consumption of judicial resources. The plaintiffwas warned previously that ifhe persisted in filing frivolous orotherwise defective complaints, the Court could limit or deny his ability to proceed withoutprepayment offees. See Slip. op., Derian Douglas Hidman v. Derian Douglas HicmanArchives etai., Civil ActionNo. 10-12, at 2 (D.D.C. Jan. 6,2010). Accordingly, the plaintiffwill be required to show cause inwriting why he should not be barred prospectively from filing withoutprepayment ofthe filing fee. A separate, related order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

U Ited States DIstnctJudge

- 2

-
**Exhibit
      13.1**




**CERTIFICATION**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Tzvika
      Friedman, as Chief Executive Officer of Alvarion Ltd. (the “Company”), certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
      the
      accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December
      31,
      2006 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:
      April 27, 2007


/s/
      Tzvika Friedman


Tzvika
      Friedman


Chief
      Executive 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000884504
<NAME>                        THERMOENERGY CORP.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              39,286
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    39,286
<PP&E>                                              19,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (19,809)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     784,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,923,929
<BONDS>                                          2,516,756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             3,886
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,660,005)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       784,566
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      289,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  92,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (344,745)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (344,745)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.08)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6855
JAMES B. SKIPWITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN WHITEHURST, Commonwealth Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-592-2) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Skipwith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:James B. Skipwith appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Skipwith v. Whitehurst , No. CA-98-592-2 (E.D. Va. June 8, 1998). We deny Skipwith’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 690 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 690

 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
    under the Medicaid Program of organ transplant procedures as an 
        emergency medical procedure for certain alien children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2003

Mr. Gutierrez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage 
    under the Medicaid Program of organ transplant procedures as an 
        emergency medical procedure for certain alien children.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Alien Child Organ Transplant Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF ORGAN TRANSPLANT PROCEDURES CONSIDERED AS 
              AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN ALIENS WHO 
              HAVE NOT ATTAINED THE AGE OF 18 YEARS.

    (a) Amendment to Title XIX of the Social Security Act.--Section 
1903(v)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)) is 
amended to read as follows:
            ``(C) such care and services are not related to an organ 
        transplant procedure, unless the organ transplant is for an 
        individual who has not attained the age of 18 years and who 
        either was residing in the United States on the date of the 
        enactment of the Alien Child Organ Transplant Act of 2003; or 
        developed the medical condition necessitating an organ 
        transplant while residing in the United States.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401(b)(1)(A) of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 
U.S.C. 1611(b)(1)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``1903(v)(3)'' and inserting ``1903(v)''; 
        and
            (2) by striking ``procedure,'' and inserting ``procedure 
        (unless the alien has not attained the age of 18 years and 
        either was residing in the United States on the date of the 
        enactment of the Alien Child Organ Transplant Act of 2003 or 
        developed the medical condition necessitating an organ 
        transplant while residing in the United States),''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to care and services furnished on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**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 Annual Report of PetroChina Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period endingDecember 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ZHAO Dong, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

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 results of operations ofthe Company. 

 

Date: April 28, 2016
**Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Home Diagnostics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Periodic Report”), I, Ronald L. Rubin, Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and  2. the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: August 10, 2007 /s/ Ronald L. Rubin         Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    (principal financial and accounting officer)  
27
The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3943

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas

Jeannie Lynn Williams, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 7, 1998

 Filed: October 20, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jeannie Lynn Williams appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas upon her guilty plea to bank fraud, in

1

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The district court sentenced Williams to 6 months

imprisonment, 3 years of supervised release, restitution of $2,147, and a special

assessment of $100. For reversal, in a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), Williams’s counsel challenges the inclusion of uncounseled,
-2-

misdemeanor convictions in the calculation of Williams’s criminal history score. For

the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

At sentencing, Williams did not dispute that, according to the presentence report

(PSR), she had seven prior misdemeanor theft-of-property convictions for writing “hot

checks” on closed accounts, four of the seven convictions were uncounseled, and she

received no term of imprisonment for any of her uncounseled convictions. In

accordance with the PSR, the district court concluded, as relevant, Williams had a

Category III criminal history, see U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c), and a total offense level of 5,

yielding a Guidelines imprisonment range of 1-7 months.

In Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (1994), the Supreme Court reaffirmed

its holding in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 372-74 (1979), that where no sentence of

imprisonment was imposed, a defendant charged with a misdemeanor had no

constitutional right to counsel. The Nichols court held “that an uncounseled

misdemeanor conviction, valid under Scott because no prison term was imposed, is also

valid when used to enhance punishment at a subsequent conviction.” 511 U.S. at 748-

49. We therefore agree with the district court that Williams&s uncounseled

misdemeanor convictions, none of which resulted in sentences of imprisonment, could

be used in calculating her criminal history. 

Having reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), and having found no nonfrivolous issues, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 3:11-cr-00522-AET Document 75 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 333
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

CATHLEEN MARIE CRUCHON, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

May 24, 2016 

v No. 326522 

Macomb Circuit Court 

BARO MINI STORAGE, LC No. 2014-000998-NO 

 Defendant-Appellant/CrossAppellee, 

and 

NEW IMAGE LANDSCAPE LLC, 

 Defendant. 

Before: MURPHY, P.J., and CAVANAGH and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. 

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring). 

 I concur in result only. 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
[No. 55176-1-I.

Division One.

November 7, 2005.]

#### Barbara J. Perkins, *Appellant,*v. Franciscan Health System, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 02-2-27018-2, Laura Gene Middaugh, J., entered June 18, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Cox, C.J., and Baker, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
JUNE 30, 1999
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,062                   1,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,581                   3,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40                      40
<INVENTORY>                                      3,274                   3,274
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,188                   8,188
<PP&E>                                           3,846                   3,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,543                   1,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,869                  10,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,882                   2,882
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           242                     242
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,353                  24,343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,869                  10,869
<SALES>                                          5,131                  10,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,131                  10,071
<CGS>                                            3,059                   5,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,059                   5,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,710                   3,362
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20                       8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    342                     754
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                342                     754
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       342                     754
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.01                    0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01                    0.03


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                            FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS, INC.
                   STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE


                                                               Three Months Ended 
                                                          ------------------------- 
                                                            March 31,     March 31,
                                                              1998          1997
                                                          -----------   -----------
<S>                                                      <C>           <C>        
Net income                                                $   364,748   $    16,476
                                                          ===========   ===========

Basic:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding       14,528,419    11,530,607
                                                          ===========   ===========

Diluted:

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding       14,528,419    11,530,607
Weighted average common equivalent shares                   1,346,896       627,521
                                                          -----------   -----------

Weighted average number of common and common equivalent
shares outstanding used to calculate per share data        15,875,315    12,158,128
                                                          ===========   ===========

Net income per share
     Basic                                                $      0.03   $      0.00
                                                          ===========   ===========
     Diluted                                              $      0.02   $      0.00
                                                          ===========   ===========

 
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAMARR ROWELL, Appellant, No. 69676

vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

### Respondent. 

# FILED MAR 25 2016
TRACIE K LII4DEMAN CLERK CF SUPREME COURT ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL BY _SLY(Ir-C- 1 

### -na te

_ . DEPUTY CLERK This is a pro se appeal from a district court order transferring petition. Eleventh Judicial District Court, Pershing County; Jim C. Shirley, Judge.

Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from the aforementioned order, we lack jurisdiction. Castillo u. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Cherry 

## °Aut. cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge Hon. Jim C. Shirley, District Judge Lamarr Rowell Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk Pershing County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 1(,-ORSI 7 (0) I 947A Ce#10
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio Cesar PARRALES-ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40650

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*345Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Julio Cesar Parrales-Zuniga raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by *United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir.2009), which reaffirmed the holding in *United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir.2003), that knowledge of drug type and quantity is not an element of the offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841. The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.