alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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 June 18, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30398

ANTHONY ROSENBAUM, Plaintiff,

versus CAL DIVE INTERNATIONAL INC, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

versus BROCO INC, Third Party Defendant - Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CV-3274

-------------------- Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cal Dive International and Broco both appeal in this products liability case involving the explosion of an underwater cutting torch manufactured by Broco that injured Anthony Rosenbaum, a commercial diver employed by Cal Dive. Cal Dive argues on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing several of its claims, drafting the jury charge, and excluding evidence of post-accidentNo. 06-30398 -2- changes to the torch. It also argues that the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Broco argues on appeal that the court erred in allowing Cal Dive’s claim to proceed to the jury. After considering the oral and written arguments of the parties, the evidence and the record in this case, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error of law in its rulings or its instructions to the jury, and that there was a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings and verdict. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            1927
<SECURITIES>                                       409
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4392
<ALLOWANCES>                                       752
<INVENTORY>                                       6551
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19215
<PP&E>                                          852546
<DEPRECIATION>                                  277861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  637953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            76315
<BONDS>                                         246996
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        555356
<OTHER-SE>                                    (326641)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    637953
<SALES>                                          97101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                388110
<CGS>                                            17323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   333723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 47001
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   320
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               27478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20097)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (21197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21197)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.2

                        CERTIFICATE OF WARRANT ADJUSTMENT
                    REDEEMABLE COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANTS


The undersigned, being the Vice President of Finance and Administration of FOCUS
Enhancements,  Inc. (the "Company")  hereby certifies that,  pursuant to Section
4.3 of that  certain  Warrant  Agreement  by and among the  Company  and  Mellon
Securities  Trust  Company,  dated  May 24,  1993,  the  terms of the  Company's
Redeemable  Common  Stock  Purchase  Warrants  issued  in  connection  with  the
Company's  public offering on May 24, 1993,  (the "Public  Warrants") are hereby
adjusted as follows:

         o        Each Public Warrant, with an exercise price of $6.75, entitles
                  the holder to purchase 1.811 shares of Common Stock,  which is
                  equal to $3.73 per Common  Share on a pro-rated  basis,  until
                  May 23, 1998.

The foregoing purchase price and numbers of shares of Common Stock issuable upon
exercise are primarily the result of adjustments during the period June 30, 1997
through May 5, 1998 due to: (a) the sale of an aggregate of 1,092,150  shares of
Common Stock for less than the  purchase  price of Common Stock under the Public
Warrants at the date of sale relating to a Private  Placement in March 1998; and
(b) the sale of an  aggregate of 350,000  additional  shares of Common Stock for
less than the purchase  price of Common  Stock under the Public  Warrants at the
date of sale relating to the acquisition of Digital Vision, Inc.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certificate as of the 6th
day of May, 1998.



\s\  Gary M. Cebula 
Gary M. Cebula
Vice President of Finance
and Administration
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome Lee BORDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7623.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2012.

Jerome Lee Borders, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*265PER CURIAM:

Jerome Lee Borders appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Borders,*No. 5:01-cr-00006-RLV-l (W.D.N.C. Sept. 11, 2012). 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.*
H. Res. 257

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 4, 2003.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 760)

to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth

abortion. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the

amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules

accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative

Greenwood of Pennsylvania or his designee, which shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one

hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.
2

•HRES 257 EH

SEC. 2. After passage of H.R. 760, it shall be in order

to take from the Speaker’s table S. 3 and to consider the

Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order to move to

strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to

insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 760 as passed by

the House. All points of order against that motion are

waived.

Attest:

Clerk.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00064- CV

In re Thom as Hollow ell

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM LLANO COUNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O PI N I O N
Relator Thomas Hollowell filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to act on his pe nding application for writ of habea s corpus pursuant to article 11.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072 (West 2005). The trial court has since filed a response ref lecting that it has t ak en the reque sted action. Acc ording ly , the petition for wr it of mandamus is dismis sed as moot.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Filed: Apr il 8, 2011
###                                       AMENDMENT NO. 1
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 141 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36711-36712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17686]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part

[[Page 36712]]

225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a 
bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, 
control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding 
company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank 
holding company, including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 20, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Piedmont Community Bank Holdings, Inc., Chapel Hill, North 
Carolina; to become a bank holding company by acquiring up to 62 
percent of the voting securities of VantageSouth Bank, Burlington, 
North Carolina.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 
2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Community Trust Financial Corporation, Ruston, Louisiana; to 
merge with First Louisiana Bancshares, Inc., and indirectly acquire 
First Louisiana Bank, both of Shreveport, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 21, 2009.
Margaret McCloskey Shanks
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-17686 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         165,733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  262,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    554,490
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,167,489
<PP&E>                                      25,295,714
<DEPRECIATION>                              (9,581,215)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,067,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,892,722
<BONDS>                                     12,307,085
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,911
<COMMON>                                         4,586
<OTHER-SE>                                     (55,201)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,067,772
<SALES>                                      8,371,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,371,558
<CGS>                                        2,777,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,777,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,425,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               603,110
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,846,762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                312,583
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            312,583
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   312,583
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44




</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2



                   CONSENT OF H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.



We hereby consent to the use of the name H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and of
references to H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and to inclusion of and reference
to our reports, or information contained therein, dated January 31, 2003 and
February 17, 2004, prepared for Whittier Energy Corporation in the Whittier
Energy Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2003.



                                       H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.



                                       by: /s/ Sylvia Castilleja
                                       -------------------------
                                       Sylvia Castilleja, PE
                                       Senior Vice President



March 25, 2004
Houston, Texas





H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 333 CLAY STREET, SUITE 3850, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002
                                  (713)739-1000
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the Annual Report of Live Current Media Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, C. Geoffrey
Hampson, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company and Chairman of the Board of Directors,
certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




(2)
  The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.









/s/
C. Geoffrey Hampson


C.
Geoffrey Hampson


Chief
Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and
Chairman


March 26,
2010






The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
statement.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2066

___________

Song Cha Flannery; James Flannery; *

Patricia J. Young; Keya Young; Keicha *

Slayton; Kevin Slayton, *

*

Appellees, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Dennis Hyde, Chief of Police Paragould * [UNPUBLISHED]

Police Department; Carlon Chipman; *

Larry Bennett; Scott Chamberlain; City *

of Paragould, Arkansas, *

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2000

Filed: January 19, 2000 

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Song Cha Flannery, James Flannery, Patricia J. Young, Keja Young, Keicha

Slayton, and Kevin Slayton brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting violations

of their Fourth Amendment rights after Paragould police officers Carlon Chipman,

Larry Bennett, and Scott Chamberlain searched their homes in the middle of the night
-2-

without a warrant. Although the plaintiffs consented to the searches, they claim they

did not consent voluntarily. The defendants moved for summary judgment asserting

they are entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion,

concluding the individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter

of law because the reasonableness of the searches turned on the voluntariness of

consent, which the parties disputed. The court also found a genuine issue of material

fact about whether the City of Paragould had a custom or policy of violating plaintiffs'

rights. On appeal, the appellants challenge the plaintiffs' version of the facts as stated

in their affidavits and contend the affidavits do not create a material issue of fact for

trial. Our limited jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment based on

qualified immunity does not extend to this evidentiary issue, however. See Johnson v.

Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 307, 313 (1995); McCaslin v. Wilkins, 183 F.3d 775, 778 (8th

Cir. 1999). The appellants also make legal arguments based on the factual assumption

that the plaintiffs voluntarily consented to the searches. Without resolving the

evidentiary issue, we cannot reach the legal ones. We thus dismiss the appeal. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie J. White, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 896]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of, inter alia, robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) and attempted robbery in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 160.10 [1]). Defendant failed to *1274preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to his participation in the crimes of robbery and attempted robbery and his intent to commit them inasmuch as he failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on those grounds *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Although defendant preserved for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the robbery, we conclude that his contention lacks merit *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally id.).*Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Green and Gorski, JJ.
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 985

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling 

Green, Ohio, as the ‘‘Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 985 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling Green, 

4 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Delbert L. 

5 Latta Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 13, 2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk. 

By MARTHA C. MORRISON,

Deputy Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 942 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 942

   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide student loan 
       borrowers with a choice of lender for loan consolidation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2003

 Mr. Regula (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Goodlatte, 
   Mr. Hayes, Mr. Otter, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. 
Schrock, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wilson of 
   South Carolina, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, and Mr. Hoekstra) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide student loan 
       borrowers with a choice of lender for loan consolidation.

    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 ``Consolidation Student Loan 
Flexibility Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. STUDENT LOAN BORROWER CHOICE OF LOAN CONSOLIDATOR.

     Section 428C(b)(1)(A) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 1078-3(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``and (i) the lender 
holds'' and all that follows through ``selected for consolidation)''.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 54924-3-I.

Division One.

November 28, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Patrick Lynn Morris, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 03-1-00660-1, Susan K. Cook, J., entered September 3, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
RE:	Saturna Investment Trust, File #33-13247

 

April 1, 2004

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of the referenced Trust and pursuant to Rule 497 (j), we wish tocertify that the form of the recently filed Prospectus and Statement ofAdditional Information for CIK #0000811860, Saturna Investment Trust, that wouldhave been filed under Rule 497 paragraph (b) or (c) would not have differed fromthat contained in the most recent registration or amendment, and that the texthas been filed electronically.

If you have any questions or comments concerning this filing, kindly contactme at  (360) 594-9900 x303.
# laucnty17

&8Page &P of &N