alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Erik J. NIELSEN, Debtor. Erik J. Nielsen, Appellant v. ACS, Inc. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Appellee.

No. 12-2925.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 15, 2013.

Filed: April 25, 2013.

*635Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Erik Nielsen appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s1 judgment denying Nielsen’s request to discharge his student loan debt under the “undue hardship” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8). He also moves to correct the record to include the parties’ bankruptcy trial exhibits.

We exercise our discretion to enlarge the record to include Nielsen’s trial exhibits, because they were submitted to and reviewed by the bankruptcy court. However, we reject his argument that the bankruptcy court violated his due process rights by not forwarding the exhibits to the BAP, because it was Nielsen’s responsibility to designate the record on appeal. *See*Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8006 (appellant’s duty to designate record on appeal). We also conclude that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nielsen’s last-minute motion to continue his trial.

Having carefully reviewed the record and Nielsen’s arguments that directly and meaningfully address claimed errors by the bankruptcy court, we conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding that Nielsen’s allergies did not restrict his ability to work, *see In re Ungar,*633 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir.2011) (this court reviews bankruptcy court’s factual determinations for clear error, and its legal determinations de novo), and that Nielsen failed to establish his student loan debt was dis-chargeable based on undue hardship, *see Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Jesperson,*571 F.3d 775, 779, 782 (8th Cir.2009) (court applies totality-of-the-circumstances test in determining undue hardship under § 523(a)(8); debtor bears rigorous burden of proving undue hardship by preponderance of evidence; debtor is not entitled to undue-hardship discharge of student loan debts when current income is result of self-imposed limitations, rather than lack of job skills, and he has not made payments on loan debt despite ability to do so); *In re Long,*322 F.3d 549, 553-55 (8th Cir.2003) (describing totality-of-circumstances test). We further conclude that the bankruptcy court did not err in considering Nielsen’s eligibility for the Income Contingent Repayment Program as one factor in its analysis. *See Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp.,*571 F.3d at 782 (student loan debt not discharged when debtor was eligible for Income Contingent Repayment Program, and could make payments under program without compromising minimal standard of living). Nielsen’s remaining arguments are meritless and do not warrant extended discussion.

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Anita L. Shodeen, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ATLANTIC COMMUNITY BANKERS BANK, INC., AND JON EVANS, Respondents

v. CHARLES DANIELS AND IMRAN DALVI, Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 295 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gary D. Blackford, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    GARY D.
BLACKFORDGary D. Blackford President and Chief Executive Officer August 8, 2003




21
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|                                                 |                                                                                       |                                        |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|  Date:  May                  21, 2007 |                                                                                       |
|                                            |                                                                                  |                                   |
|                                                 |                                                                                       | /s/ Marvin                  S. Hausman |
|                                                 | Marvin                  S. Hausman                                                         |
|                                                 | Chief                    Executive Officer(Principal Executive                    Officer) |
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Under
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 8, 2006
    /s/ GREGORY B. KENNYGregory B. KennyChief Executive OfficerDate:  November 8, 2006
    /s/ CHRISTOPHER F. VIRGULAKChristopher F. VirgulakChief Financial Officer  73
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

Nos. 96-50084 & 96-50155

Summary Calendar

_________________________

GLEN C. JAMES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-95-CV-1024

_________________________________________________________________ June 21, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Glen C. James, a Texas state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis

, appeals from the district court's (1) dismissal of

his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d), and (2) subsequent order imposing sanctions for his filing

a document in that court containing extremely vulgar and offensive

language.- 2 -

Jam es asserts that the court abused its discretion in

dismissing his action pursuant to the Ele venth Amendment, noting

that he sued the defendants in their official capacities and sought

only prospective injunctive relief. The dismissal is affirmed on

the alternative ground that, based on James' filing in district

court that he was no longer being subjected to the challenged strip

searches, the action is moot. S ee Powell v. McCormack

, 395 U. S

.

486, 496 (1969) (holding "a case is moot when the issues presented

are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable

interest in the ou t come"); Bickford v. International Speedway

Corp.

, 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding this court may

affirm on any ground, including grounds not considered by the

district court).

James conte nds that the district court lacked authority to

rule upon a document he filed in that c ourt after he filed his

notice of appeal, and that it abused its discretion in imposing

sanctions against him for that filing. He maintains also that the

sanctions violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

The imposition of sanctions was an appropriate exercise of the

court's inherent authority. S ee Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of

America v. Energy Gathering Inc.

, 2 F.3d 1397, 1410-11 (5th Cir.

1993), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 114 S. Ct. 882 (1994).

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
23.1  Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.
333-67527, 333-51607, 333-20673, 333-01789, 333-53802, 333-53804, 333-117249,
and 333-130246) of Zale Corporation of our reports dated October 29, 2009,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Zale Corporation
included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended July 31,
2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
Zale Corporation filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  /s/ Ernst &
Young LLP  October 29, 2009 Dallas, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 25, 2019

No. 04-19-00348-CV

Fernando CORONA, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1997EM504318

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In response to this court’s order dated July 9, 2019, appellant has filed proof of payment 

of the fees for preparation of the clerk’s record. In addition, appellant asserts he has requested 

court reporter Mary Wilson to file a reporter’s record of the hearing conducted in the case on 

November 7, 2018, and has filed proof that the cost for preparation of that record has been paid.

We therefore order Bexar County District Clerk, Mary Angie Garcia, to file the clerk’s 

record, and order court reporter Mary W. Wilson to file the reporter’s record of the November 7, 

2018 hearing. We order both records due August 5, 2019. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 25th day of July, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3,301,003   
<SECURITIES>                                   0           
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,139,316   
<ALLOWANCES>                                   254,723     
<INVENTORY>                                    3,315,851   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,536,595   
<PP&E>                                         2,988,502   
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,548,843   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,821,822  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,468,151   
<BONDS>                                        0           
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0           
<PREFERRED>                                    0           
<COMMON>                                       9,751       
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,757,593  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,821,822  
<SALES>                                        1,495,303   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,495,303   
<CGS>                                          1,388,634   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,535,907   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,519,351   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0           
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,013,220   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,429,238) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,495,303   
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0           
<CHANGES>                                      0           
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,429,238) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.49)      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.49)      
                                                           
                                               

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the

Annual Report of Commerce Group Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") for the

purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the

United States Code.



I, Edward A. Machulak, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

of Commerce Group Corp., (the "Company"), hereby 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-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended

March 31, 2008, (the "Form 10-K"), 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-K fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of

the Company.



Date:  July 14, 2008            /s/ Edward A. Machulak

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

Edward A. Machulak

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
#### MITCHELL v. KANSAS CITY PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (DeWITT, Third Party Defendant).

No. 1807.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 4, 1945.

Fred Bellemere and Roy W. Rucker, both of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Charles L. Carr, Hale Houts, A. C. Trippe, and Hogsett, Trippe, Depping & Houts, all of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

Fred Bellemere and Roy W. Rucker, both of Kansas City, Mo., for third party defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

It is unnecessary to discuss the motion for judgment in favor of the third party plaintiff against the third party defendant. Counsel have advised that an adjustment has been made between these litigants. However, an inspection of the pleadings reveals that the plaintiff made no claim against third party defendant, nor did third party plaintiff make such claim. It was suggested by the third party plaintiff that the third party defendant might be liable to the plaintiff. Since the verdict of the jury was for the defendant, under the pleadings the third party plaintiff would have no claim against the third party defendant.

The third party defendant asks for nothing, and it would follow that the third party complaint should be dismissed. It will be so ordered.

In his motion for a new trial plaintiff asserts three grounds, namely, that the verdict of the jury was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence; that the verdict of the jury was contrary to physical facts; and, finally, that the court committed error in charging the jury that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover if the testimony in its judgment was evenly balanced on the issue of liability.

The verdict of the jury was not against the weight of the evidence, nor did it violate known physical facts. The charge of the court was a proper one under the authorities. It would follow that the motion for a new trial should be overruled. It will be so ordered.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 641 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 641

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the employer wage 
               credit for activated military reservists.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2015

Mr. Peters (for himself and Mrs. Ernst) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the employer wage 
               credit for activated military reservists.

    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 ``Military Reserve Small Business Jobs 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR ACTIVATED MILITARY 
              RESERVISTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 45P(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2014'' and inserting 
``December 31, 2019''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to payments made after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
Unassociated Document


  
     

    
      
        Exhibit
10.34.b

      

    

     

    


    

    


    


    


    The
undersigned agree this 31st day of December, 2008 that to the extent the
undersigned agree to extend or renew the employment agreement between us
dated February 24, 2004 beyond December 31, 2008, such
agreement shall be amended effective January 1, 2009 in the same manner (to
the extent applicable) that changes are reflected in redlining and strike-out on
the form of amended and restated employment agreement (with
Stephen Plavin) that is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the first quarter
of 2009, we shall decide whether to extend or renew the employment
agreement and if so extended or renewed we shall execute an amended
and restated employment agreement in order to clarify all of the
forgoing changes being made by this letter agreement.

     

    
       

      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    	 	CT
      INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT CO., LLC	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                             

                          	
                            By:
      

                          	/s/ Geoffrey
      Jervis	 
	 	Name: 	Geoffrey
      Jervis	 
	 	Title: 	
                            Chief Financial
      Officer

                          	 
	 	 	 	 


                  

                

              

            

          

        

      

       

      
        
          
            	 	CAPITAL
      TRUST INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                     

                  	
                    By:
      

                  	/s/ Geoffrey
      Jervis	 
	 	Name: 	
                    Geoffrey
      Jervis

                  	 
	 	Title: 	
                          
                      Chief Financial
      Officer

                    

                  	 
	 	 	 	 


          

        

      

       

      
        
          
            
              
                	
                         

                      	
                         

                      	/s/  John
      R. Klopp	 
	 	 	 John
      R. Klopp	 
	 	 	 	 


              

            

          

        

      

       

    

    


    


    
      
        410 Park
Avenue • 14th Floor
New York, New York 10022 • 212.655.0220 • Fax 212.655.0044 • NYSE Symbol:
CT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from the Temtex
Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries financial statements for the twelve
months ended August 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                             445
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                       435
<INVENTORY>                                     10,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,151
<PP&E>                                          27,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,822
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           716
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,010
<SALES>                                         41,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,010
<CGS>                                           30,977
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   198
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    866
<INCOME-TAX>                                       324
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                542
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       542
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Steven Elk SHOULDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30168.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Marcia Kay Hurd, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Lisa Jeannine Bazant, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Mark Stevens Elk Shoulder appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Elk Shoulder contends that the district court abused its discretion when it revoked his supervised release for violating the condition of supervised release prohibiting him from being in the company of a child under the age of 18. Contrary to Elk Shoulder’s contention, the record supports the conclusion that his contact with the child was not incidental or unknowing. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Elk Shoulder violated a condition of his supervised release. *See United States v. Perez,*526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir .2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# nat_int_updated