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

No. 20

- 10635 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Leslie Mayuly Kingrasaphone,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 364

- 4

Before **Wiener, Southwick,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Leslie Mayuly Kingrasaphone appeals the 210

- month sentence imposed following her guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846 . She contends the district court erred by applying the two

-

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 4, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10635 Document: 00515732835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2021No. 20

- 10635

2 level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5) based on its finding that the offense involved importation of methamphetamine. She concedes that the argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v. Foulks , 747
F.3d 9 14, 915 (5th Cir. 2014), but she asserts that Foulks was wrongly decided.
As Kingrasaphone concedes, her sole argument on appeal is foreclosed by the decision in Foulks , in which t his court upheld the application of the § 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement even where the person from whom the defendant purchased the methamphetamine had not personally imported it

. Foulks , 747 F.3d at 915; s ee also United States v. Serfass , 684 F.3d 548, 552 (5t h Cir. 2012) (holding that the Section 2D1.1(b)(5) enhancement applies “ regardless of whether the defendant had knowledge of [the drug] importation. ”). Accordingly, the Government ’ s motion for summary
affirmance is **GRANTED** , the Government ’ s alternative mo tion for an
extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED** as unnecessary , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-10635 Document: 00515732835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/04/2021
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Gavin Heath Gilbert, Appellant

No. 06-18-00152-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1826694). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Gavin Heath Gilbert, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 3, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
ACCEPTED12-14-00290-CRTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS4/6/2015 10:14:42 AMCATHY LUSKCLERK
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20344

CHRISTIAN VALLEJO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated 

current and former employees,

Plaintiff–Appellee

v.

GARDA CL SOUTHWEST, INCORPORATED,

Defendant–Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CV-555

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 action, defendant-appellant 

Garda CL Southwest, Inc., appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to 

enforce the arbitration clause of a putative collective bargaining agreement as 

to three intervenors, finding that the motion presented material issues of fact.

We AFFIRM.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 4, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20344 Document: 00512585988 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/04/2014
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 1066

JENNIFER C. LAWRENCE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WAL

- MART STORES EAST, LP , Defendant

- Appellee , and FAIRFAX WALMART SUPERCENTER #2015; WAL

- MART ASSOCIATES, INC.; WALMART INC.; WAL

- MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST; WAL

- MART STORES, INC ., Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00130

- LMB

- MSN )

Submitted : March 24, 2022 Decided: March 31, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD , Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: D. Cory Bilton, BILTON LAW FIRM, PLLC , Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John M

. Murdock , POTTER & MURDOCK, PC , Falls Church, Virginia, for2 Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Jennifer C. Lawrence appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Wal

- Mart in Lawrence’s tort action arising out of a fall in the store . We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the December 15, 2020, hearing on the motion for summary judgment

. Lawrence v. Wal

- Mart Stores E., L.P

. , No. 1:20

- cv - 00130

- LMB

MSN (E.D. Va. file d Dec. 15, 2020 & entered Dec. 16, 2020 ) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Kevin G.
Lafond, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc.; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2018



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kevin G. Lafond                                                                  
|Kevin G. Lafond Senior Vice President Finance,
Chief Accounting Officer and Treasurer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5428 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5428

To amend the Federal Charter of the Boy Scouts of America in title 36, 
United States Code, to ratify the authority of the Secretary of Defense 
and military installations and units of the Armed Forces to officially 
   sponsor units of the Boy Scouts of America serving dependents of 
members of the Armed Forces and to make facilities of the Department of 
   Defense available for Boy Scout meetings and activities, such as 
                national and world Boy Scout Jamborees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2004

 Mr. Dingell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Charter of the Boy Scouts of America in title 36, 
United States Code, to ratify the authority of the Secretary of Defense 
and military installations and units of the Armed Forces to officially 
   sponsor units of the Boy Scouts of America serving dependents of 
members of the Armed Forces and to make facilities of the Department of 
   Defense available for Boy Scout meetings and activities, such as 
                national and world Boy Scout Jamborees.

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

SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SPONSORSHIP AND SUPPORT FOR BOY SCOUTS 
              OF AMERICA.

    Section 30904 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Federal Support.--The Secretary of Defense, and military 
installations and units of the Armed Forces under the jurisdiction of 
the Secretary of Defense, may support the corporation by officially 
sponsoring units of the Boy Scouts of America serving dependents of 
members of the Armed Forces and by making facilities of the Department 
of Defense available for the meetings of such Boy Scout units and for 
other Boy Scout activities, such as national and world Boy Scout 
Jamborees.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended May 3, 2008 of Stein Mart, Inc. (the Form 10-Q), I, Linda M. Farthing, President and Chief Executive 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:



|1. | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: June 11, 2008 |  | /s/ Linda M. Farthing                
|                    |  | Linda M. Farthing                    
|                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



15
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended August 4, 2007 of Stein Mart, Inc. (the Form 10-Q), I, John H. Williams, Jr., Co-President and Chief Executive 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:



|3. | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                         
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: September 12, 2007 |  | /s/ John H. Williams, Jr.               
|                         |  | John H. Williams, Jr.                   
|                         |  | Co-President and Chief Executive Officer



20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     3
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       3
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               80
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                         341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         3
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    18
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (18)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (18)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (18)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
# table14full04

&8Page &P of &N
MATHEMATICIAN/ STATISTICIAN

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

SURVEYOR

Electrical engineers 

design, develop, 

test, and supervise 

the manufacture 

of electrical 

equipment.

Surveyors make precise 

measurements to 

determine property 

boundaries.

Mathematicians and statisticians 

analyze data and apply 

computational techniques

to solve problems.

www.bls.gov/k12

299,700

jobs in 2022; 

number of jobs 

projected for 2032

315,500

•

Median annual wage for 2022

$104,610

46,200

•

Median annual wage for 2022

$99,960

50,800

jobs in 2022; 

number of jobs 

projected for 2032

53,100

•

Median annual wage for 2022

$63,080

Careers in Math

35,600 

jobs in 2022; 

number of jobs 

projected for 2032
#### NAAMLOZE VENNOOTSCHAP SUIKERFABRIEK “WONO-ASEH” v. CHASE NAT. BANK OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Jan. 18, 1952.

Parker, 'Chapin & Flattau, New York City, for plaintiff.

Milbank, Tweed, Hope & Hadley, New York City, for defendants Chase Nat. Bank & Egger & Co.

Abberley, Bryde, Kooiman, MacFall & Amon, New York City, for impleaded defendant and Foreign Exchange Institute of Indonesia, intervener.

Sylvester & Harris, New York City, for intervener Foreign Exchange Commission of Suriname.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

This is a motion by plaintiff for leave to amend its complaint. The original complaint contained but one cause of action for the recovery of certain securities held in a custody account by the defendant, The Chase National Bank of the City of New York.

The proposed amended complaint re-alleges this claim but seeks to add a second cause of action which, in substance, alleges that the defendant, Chase National Bank, made a series of transfers of the account and paid out dividends and income derived from the securities to parties other than the plaintiff or without its knowledge or consent, and in violation of a custody agreement. In this action plaintiff seeks recovery of the interest and dividends so paid to others.

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. The facts which form the basis of the second cause of action were not known to the plaintiff until September 1951, after taking the deposition of the defendant, Chase National Bank. The deposition was taken within a reasonable time after the commencement of the action and plaintiff moved promptly thereafter to amend the complaint.

The defendant resists the amendment on the ground of prejudice. The prejudice claimed is that the statute of limitations is a partial defense to the new proposed cause of action and that the amendment, if granted, would, under Section 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relate back to the date of the original complaint and thus revive claims barred the last year and a half; that if plaintiff were required to commence a new action, the defendant, Chase National Bank, would have available to it the defense of the statute to the extent indicated.

The plaintiff, upon the facts, is entitled to leave to serve the amended complaint. On the other hand, the defendant is entitled to have its rights protected. Accordingly, the motion to serve an amended complaint *262setting forth the second cause of action is granted; however, the order to be entered hereon may contain an appropriate provision that the granting of this application is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to contend that the new cause of action did not arise “out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence” set forth in the original complaint and to interpose the defense of any applicable statute of limitations, such issues to be determined upon the trial, unless disposed of prior thereto.

Settle order on notice.
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
ofGrace 2,
Inc.(the “Registrant”) on
Form 10-Q for the period endedFebruary 28, 2009as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Douglas A. Dyer,Principal Executive Officer and the
Principal Financial Officerof the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:




(1) 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 Registrant.




Dated:  March
      24, 2009
                Grace
      2, Inc.
                  
                  By:
      /s/ DOUGLAS A.
      DYER
                  Douglas
      A. Dyer
                  President
                  (Principal
      Executive Officer)
                  (Principal
      Financial Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BONNIE RUTH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 56614

D.C. No. 5:16

- cv

- 01513

- JDE

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John D. Early, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 25, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY , and TROTT , Circuit Judges

. Bonnie Ruth appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the
Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Ruth’s application for disability

insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the

Social Security Act. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1110

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argum ent. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 56614

(9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The ALJ did not err by failing to mention explicitly a reference to an EMG

study that was not probative of any functional limitations. See Hiler v. Astrue , 687
F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the ALJ is not required to discuss

evidence th at is neither significant nor probative). Substantial evidence supports

the review by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the medical evidence and

assessment of the Residual Functional Capacity ( RFC ) , which properly includes all

limitations consistent w ith and supported by substantial evidence. See Bray v.

Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin. , 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (RFC must include

all limitations supported by the record).

The ALJ did not err by failing to ask the Vocational Expert (VE) about any

con flict between his testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)
because there was no apparent conflict between Ruth’s RFC and “the [DOT’s]
listing of job requirements that are essential, integral, or expected.” Gutierrez v.

Colvin , 844 F.3d 80 4, 808 (9th Cir. 2016).
The ALJ properly discredited Ruth’s testimony based on lack of supporting

medical evidence. See Burch v. Barnhart , 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005)

(explaining that lack of supporting objective evidence may be one reason to

discre dit claimant testimony). Ruth waived any additional arguments by failing to

adequately raise them before the district court. See Greger v. Barnhart , 464 F.3d3 17

- 56614

968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that Social Security disability claimant

waived issues on appeal by failing to raise them before the district court).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to alter

the judgment. See McQuillion v. Duncan , 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review).

AFFIRMED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6171

In Re: GREGORY MILANOVICH,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-234-MU)

Submitted: April 20, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Milanovich, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Milanovich petitions this court for a writ of mandamus

compelling Chief District Judge Graham C. Mullen to reverse his

order transferring Milanovich’s civil action to the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Milanovich

has failed to demonstrate he has no other adequate means to attain

the relief he desires or that his right to mandamus relief is clear

and indisputable. See Allied Chem. Corp. v. Diaflon, 449 U.S. 33,

35 (1980).

Accordingly, we grant Milanovich’s motion for relief from the

provisions of Fed. R. App. P. 21, but we deny mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED