alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11045 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. ENCARNACION CASTILLO, JR, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:94-CR-56-ALL
Before GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Encarnacion Castillo, Jr., appeals the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court following the revocation of his supervised release. He argues that the district court failed to properly weigh thefactorsof18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing the statutory maximum sentence, thereby rendering his sentence unreasonable. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 27, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-11045

2 Because Castillo did not object to his sentence in the district court, review is limited to plain error. SeeUnited Statesv. Lopez-Velasquez,

___F.3d ___, Nos. 07-10151, 07-10321, 2008 WL 1874577 at *1 (5th Cir. A pr. 29, 2008). The district court considered the policy statementsofChapter 7 and determined that the facts of the instant case warranted a sentence above the recommended range. Castillo’s probation officer testified for sentencing purposes, revealing that Castillo tested positive for cocaine on one occasion and did not submit a urine specimen on another occasion. Castillo has not shown that his revocation sentence is unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. U nited Statesv. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, the district court did not plainly err in imposing Castillo’s sentence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AM E LIA R ODRIGUEZ LEDEZM A,

Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73531 Age n c y No. A090-034-284 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. Am e lia R odrigue zLe de z m a , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing he r m o tion to re ope n . W e have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo 

# FIL ED DEC 19 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c onstitutiona l c la im s a nd que stions of la

w. Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th C ir. 2005). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w . W e ge ne ra lly

la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the B IA’ s disc re tiona ry de c ision not to re ope n proc e e dings sua sponte , but re ta in limite d jurisdic tion to re vie w for le g a l or c onstitutiona

l e rror. Me

jia-He rnande

z v . Holde r , 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th C ir. 2011); B onilla v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th C ir. 2016). Rodrigue z Le d e z m a ’ s due proc e ss c la im s fa il, whe re she c onc e d e s she wa s not sta tutorily e ligiblefor a wa ive r of ina dm i s sibility

unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(c ) at the tim e of he r de porta tion proc e e dings, a

nd the im m igration judge (“ IJ” ) ha d no duty to inform he r a bout form s of re lie f for whic h she wa s not e ligible . S e e Lata v . IN

S , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th C ir. 2000) (re quiring e rror and pre judic e to pre va il on a

due proc e ss c la im); U.S. v . Lope

z-Ve lasque

z , 629 F.3d 894, 901 (9th C i r. 2010) (e n ba nc ) (“ [A] n IJ’ s duty

is limite d to informing a

n a lie n of a re a sona ble possibility

tha t the a lie n is e ligiblefor re lie f at the tim e of the he a ring.” ). R odrigue zLe de z m a ’ s c la im tha t the B IA fa ile d to a d dre ss issue s in the de nia l of he r m otion to re ope n is not supporte d by the re c ord. Se eN ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding the B IA a de quat e ly c onside re d e vide nc e a

nd suffic ie ntly

announc e d

its de c ision). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D. 1 4 - 7 3 5 3 1 2
#### Joseph H. LYONS and Jessie H. Lyons, individually and as co-partners doing business under the name and style of Lyons Electrical Distributing Company, Plaintiffs, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION and General Electric Company, Defendants.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug. 23, 1954.

See also D.C., 109 F.Supp. 925.

Copal Mintz, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for defendant, Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, New York City, for defendant, General Electric Co.

WALSH, District Judge.

Defendants move to stay further proceedings in the above entitled action pending the outcome of an accounting proceeding in the courts of the State of New York in which they claim identical issues are being considered and in which an interlocutory order for an accounting has already been entered.

The motion is granted.

This action to recover triple damages for violation of antitrust laws was commenced by plaintiffs after Westinghouse had initiated a proceeding in the State Court to recover from them for dishonest accounting. Plaintiffs were agents of Westinghouse in the distribution of electric lamps. A claim of antitrust violation was raised by them as a defense in *385the State action and was found unsubstantiated. An accounting has been ordered and its conclusion now awaits their prosecution of an appeál.

Plaintiffs claim they should be permitted to take the depositions of the officers and employees of the defendants without further delay. They have already examined the officers and employees of Westinghouse in the State action. Depositions cover 800 pages of testimony and 6,000 documents.

They have not examined General Electric because a pretrial order requires that these depositions follow those of Westinghouse.

The expense and hardship of depositions in an antitrust proceeding should not be compelled when there is reasonable likelihood that the conclusion of the State proceeding will make it unnecessary to try the action pending here. Especially is this true when the antitrust charge was an apparent retaliation to a proceeding to recover for false accounting. It is no longer a matter of charge and counter charge; the State Court has found the antitrust claim unsubstantiated and it further found that:

> “ * * * The defendants boldly admitted not only that a special, and apparently secret, consignment ledger was kept but also that their monthly reports were false and to such an extent that even they themselves were unfamiliar with all of the details. Those admissions cast a very severe and obvious pall over the defendants’ position. * * * ”

The “obvious pall” cast over the plaintiff’s position in the State Court extends here.

There is no showing that they will be improperly prejudiced by delay. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants have pressed this action vigorously. Twenty months have passed since the pre-trial order.

Motion granted. Settle order.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11814

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-01544-AT

SUZANNE STEELE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(April 7, 2017)

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-11814 Date Filed: 04/07/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Suzanne Steele was an employee of Sears Roebuck and Co. for several 

years. She was terminated in 2009 and filed this lawsuit in 2013. Steele raised a 

number of claims in her complaint, including a claim that Sears terminated her 

based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(ADEA). The district court granted summary judgment to Sears on all of Steele’s 

claims, except for her ADEA claim. The court held a two-day bench trial on the 

ADEA claim, after which the court issued a final judgment in Sears’s favor. 

Steele, now proceeding pro se, appeals the final judgment.

1

 She argues that the 

district court erred in (1) finding that Sears terminated her for a reason other than

age and (2) excluding the testimony of her proposed expert. 

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find that 

the district court committed no reversible error. First, taking into account all the 

evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sears terminated

Steele for a reason other than age.

2

 See Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v. 

Jurado, 643 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) (“After a bench trial, we review the 

district court’s . . . factual findings for clear error.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). Second, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion 

 1 Even construing Steele’s pro se brief liberally, see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 

F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), the brief does not contest the findings upon which 

the district court’s summary judgment decision was based. Steele has therefore abandoned any 

challenge to the decision. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681–83 

(11th Cir. 2014).

2 To the extent that Steele challenges any of the district court’s other factual findings, we 

conclude that such findings were not clearly erroneous.

Case: 16-11814 Date Filed: 04/07/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

in excluding the testimony of Steele’s proposed expert. See General Elec. Co. v. 

Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S. Ct. 512, 515 (1997) (holding that the abuse-ofdiscretion standard is the appropriate standard for reviewing a district court’s 

decision to exclude expert testimony). The proposed testimony was not relevant 

given that it concerned damages for emotional distress—damages that are not 

available under the ADEA. See Munoz v. Oceanside Resorts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1340, 

1348 (11th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-11814 Date Filed: 04/07/2017 Page: 3 of 3
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Geron Corporation (the Company) hereby
certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

| | (i)  |  | the accompanying
      quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     
| | (ii) |  | the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
  Company.                                                                                                                    

Dated: October 30, 2009

|/s/ THOMAS B. OKARMA                       
|-------------------------------------------
|Thomas B.
      Okarma                     
|President and
      Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Geron Corporation and
will be retained by Geron Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000099 28-JUN-2013 08:26 AM
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the annual report of Talisman Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Manzoni, 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:

By:

/s/ JOHN A. MANZONI Name: John A. Manzoni
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer


DATEDat Calgary, Alberta, as of February 28, 2011.

---





CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the annual report of Talisman Energy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 40-F for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, L. Scott Thomson, Executive Vice-President,
Finance and Chief Financial 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:

By:

/s/ L. SCOTT THOMSON L. Scott Thomson
Executive Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer


DATEDat Calgary, Alberta, as of February 28, 2011.

---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9034-8]

      ( print page 40577)    
*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or                     *http://www.epa.gov/​nepa.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)

Filed 08/14/2017 Through 08/18/2017

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice

                    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *http://www.epa.gov/​compliance/​nepa/​eisdata.html.*

*EIS No. 20170160, Draft, BR, CA,*                     Sites Reservoir Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/13/2017, Contact: Mike Dietl 916-978-5070                

*EIS No. 20170161, Draft, USFS, MT,*                     Kootenai Forest-Wide Young Growth Vegetation Management Project, Comment Period Ends: 10/10/2017, Contact: Quinn Carver 406-283-7695                

*EIS No. 20170162, Draft Supplement, USFWS, MT,*                     Proposed Amendment to the Endangered Species Act 10(a)(1)(B) Permit Associated with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Forested State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 10/09/2017, Contact: Amelia Orton-Palmer 303-236-4211                 

*EIS No. 20170163, Final, NPS, MD,*                     Assateague Island National Seashore General Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 09/25/2017, Contact: Deborah Darden 410-629-6080                

*EIS No. 20170164, Draft, USFS, CA,*                     Exchequer Restoration Project, Comment Period Ends: 10/09/2017, Contact: Elaine Locke 559-855-5355                

Dated: August 22, 2017.

Dawn Roberts,

Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2017-18079 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re: Brian K. Melton

No. 06

- 15

- 00140

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus should be conditionally granted, directing the trial court to vacate the nunc pro tunc

judgment of conviction entered January 8, 2003. The writ will issue only if the t rial court fails to

comply.

RENDERED OCTOBER 7, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

RICHARD DENNING GEARHART

PER CURIAM:

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

No. 1756 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 76 DB 2011 (Board File No.

C4-10-940) and

Board File Nos. C4-10-705, C4-11-349

and C4-11-820

Attorney Registration No. 26540

(Venango County)

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the

Certificate of Admission of Disability by Attorney that the respondent is suffering from a

disabling condition which makes it impossible for him to prepare an adequate defense

to allegations of professional misconduct, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Richard Denning Gearhart is immediately transferred

to inactive status pursuant to Rule 301(e), Pa.R.D.E., for an indefinite period and until

further Order of the Court, and he shall comply with Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. All pending

disciplinary proceedings shall be held in abeyance, except for the perpetuation of

testimony and the preservation of documentary evidence.
EXHIBIT
10.60


 


[*] designates portions
of this document that have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential
treatment filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO TECHNOLOGY SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


This FIRST AMENDMENT (“First
Amendment”) to the September 19th, 2007, Technology Services Agreement
(the “Agreement”) by and between Republic Bank & Trust Company (“Republic”),
a Kentucky banking corporation, and Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC (“JHTSL”),
a Delaware limited liability company, is effective as of the 2nd day of
December, 2008 (the “Effective Date”).


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Republic and
JHTSL entered into the Agreement on September 19, 2007.


 


WHEREAS, Republic and
JHTSL desire to Amend certain terms of the Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements set forth below
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, Republic and JHTSL do hereby agree to amend the
Agreement as follows:


 


AMENDMENTS


 


1.             The definition of “Resource
Rate” in Section 1.1 (g) (ii) shall be modified to read as
follows:


 


(g)           [*]


 


2.             Section 1.5 (b) shall be modified
to read as follows:


 


(b)           For the 2009
Tax Season, Republic shall pay to JHTSL [*].


 


3.             Schedule A of the
Agreement shall be nullified and replaced with Schedule A, attached hereto.


 


4.             The parties agree to
negotiate in good faith to modify all necessary provisions under this Agreement
for the 2010 Tax Season, no later than [*].


 


5.             Republic and JHTSL
enter into this First Amendment only for the purposes stated herein.  Unless otherwise amended herein, all other
terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and
effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
First Amendment has been executed and delivered by a duly authorized officer of
each party as of the date set forth above.


 




	
  REPUBLIC BANK & TRUST
  COMPANY

  	
   

  	
  JACKSON HEWITT TECHNOLOGY
  SERVICES LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ William Nelson

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Daniel P. O’Brien

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  William Nelson

  	
   

  	
  Name: Daniel P. O’Brien

  
	
   

  	
  Managing Director

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: EVP &
  CFO

  






 


1

















 


Schedule A


(FEE TABLE)


 


[*] designates portions
of this document that have been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential
treatment filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


[*]


 


2
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit (23)(a)

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements and in the related Prospectuses:

      (1)   Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-51932, No. 333-52560, No.
            333-27849, No. 333-37241, No. 333-74958, No. 333-45556, No.
            333-119255, No. 333-119256) of CMS Energy Corporation;

      (2)   Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 33-60007) of CMS Energy
            Corporation;

      (3)   Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-32229 and No. 333-58686)
            pertaining to the CMS Energy Corporation Performance Incentive Stock
            Plan and Executive Stock Option Plan, respectively, and

      (4)   Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-76347) pertaining to the
            Employee Savings and Incentive Plan of Consumers Energy Company;

of our reports dated March 7, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of CMS Energy Corporation, CMS Energy Corporation
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
CMS Energy Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 2004.

                                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Detroit, Michigan
March 7, 2005
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-06-112-CV

GOLDEN REAL ESTATE HOLDING GROUP, LTD.,	APPELLANTS	

GOLDEN REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT CO., INC., 

AND JENNY'S MEAT MARKET 

	V.

 SAM BRC, INC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2  OF  TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “Appellants’ Agreed Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellants, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B:  DAUPHINOT, HOLMAN, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  July 26, 2007