alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael A. DIXON, Claimant-Appellee, v. Gordon H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2007-7010.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2007.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and FROST, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and remand this appeal.

Michael A. Dixon appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from a November 4, 2003 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that, inter alia, determined Dixon had received adequate notification of the evidence or information necessary to substantiate his claim as required by 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) through receipt of various pre and post-decisional communications.

Having determined that the Board’s reliance on post-decisional communications was improper under *Mayfield v. Nicholson,*444 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2006) and noting that it was uncertain whether the Board would have concluded that pre-decisional communications alone would have satisfied the Secretary’s section 5103(a) notice requirements, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that it was not in a position to determine whether the notice error was prejudicial. The court vacated and remanded for the Board to decide the issue in the first instance. The Secretary appealed, seeking review by this court.

On October 4, 2007, the court issued its decision in *Mlechick v. Mansfield,*503 F.3d 1340, (Fed.Cir.2007). *Mlechiclc*held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims cannot refuse to consider the rule of prejudicial error if the Board relied on both pre and post-decisional communications. Slip opinion at 8. Rather, in cases such as this, where the Secretary has attempted to show the notice error was nonprejudicial, the court should review the pre-decisional communications “to determine if any differences between the notice given and the notice required by [section 5103(a) ] ‘affected the fundamental fairness of the adjudication’ being mindful that the burden is on [the Secretary] to make such a showing.” *Id.*(citation omitted).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Acting Secretary’s motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) The revised official caption is reflected above.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

OF FLORIDA 

SECOND DISTRICT 

EVERTON HINDS, ) 

) 

Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3586

) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

) 

Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed October 25, 2017. 

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Lee County; Ramiro Manalich, Judge. 

Everton Hinds, pro se. 

PER CURIAM. 

Affirmed without prejudice to any right Hinds might have to file a timely 

and sufficient petition for belated appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.141(c). 

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Order entered September 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00406-CR

LEONEL MORENO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-12595-P

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On August 18, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record had not been filed. On September 1, 2015, we received the reporter’s record. 

Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the August 18, 2015 order 

requiring findings. We ORDER the reporter’s record filed as of the date of this order.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order. 

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 99.1




            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 on Form 10-Q of Diacrin, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Thomas H. Fraser, President and Chief Executive Officer,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.


Date: November 13, 2002                        /s/  Thomas H. Fraser
                                              -----------------------
                                                    Thomas H. Fraser
                                                    President and
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
NO. 07-99-0378-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JULY 14, 2000

	______________________________

	JESSE RAMOS,

			Appellant

	 v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

			Appellee

	FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. W-32130-01-B; HON. SAMUEL KISER, PRESIDING

	ABATE AND REMAND

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant, Jesse Ramos, appeals from an order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus.  Judgment was entered in 1993 convicting him of aggravated sexual assault.  Believing that the conviction was improper, appellant petitioned the 181st Judicial District Court for habeas relief.  The grounds alleged which purportedly entitled him to relief were numerous.  Furthermore, many were fact-dependent, such as the allegations regarding newly discovered evidence, the effectiveness of trial counsel, and purported jury misconduct.  Yet, despite appellant’s request for one, no evidentiary hearing was held by the trial court prior to its denial of the application and issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

	Given the lack of an evidentiary record and our conclusion that there exists unresolved questions of fact which warrant an evidentiary hearing, we cannot adequately address appellant’s complaints on appeal.  See Ex parte Chambers, 612 S.W.2d 572, 573- 74 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (holding that a hearing is required if there are controverted or unresolved issues of fact material to the legality of the applicant’s restraint).  Thus, we abate and remand the cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pifer v. State, 893 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist. 1995, pet. ref’d.) (holding that an appellate court has the authority to abate an appeal at any time for an evidentiary hearing if necessary).  

	We further order the judge of the 181st Judicial District Court (trial court) to 1) schedule the hearing at the earliest date permitted by its docket, and 2) provide reasonable prior notice of the hearing to all parties of record.  At the hearing, the parties shall be afforded reasonable opportunity, as determined by the trial court, to present admissible evidence relevant to their respective allegations.  Immediately upon completion of the hearing, the trial court shall then cause the testimony and evidence presented to be transcribed and incorporated into a supplemental reporter’s record and cause the supplemental reporter’s record to be filed with the clerk of this court.  Any orders that the 

trial court may issue in furtherance of our directives herein must be included in a supplemental clerk’s record which the trial court shall also cause to be filed contemporaneously with the supplemental reporter’s record.   

								Per Curiam

Do not publish.
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY

#### Parlagreco v. Parlagreco

August 31, 2001

Case No. (Chancery) CH00-297

By Judge Jeffrey W. Parker

The Court is hi receipt of an Affidavit in Support of an Order Dispensing with Publication in a newspaper and the Proposed Order Dispensing with Publication.

The Court has considered the Affidavit and reviewed § 8.01-317 and various cases construing that Section. While this Code Section does make provision for dispensing with the publication in the newspaper itself, it does not provide any guidance to the Court.

It is certainly true that in virtually every case in which an Order of Publication is used, the defendants are either unknown or outside of the Commonwealth and the actual publication itself is not likely to provide any effective service on those individuals. Despite the apparent futility of the Order of Publication, it is still widely used as a method of giving notice to individuals presumably in the hopes that by publicly notifying the community of the actions to be taken, some type of notice will eventually make its way back to the defendant.

While Mr. Parlagreco is apparently out of the country, that does not mean that he might not return nor does it mean that all of his contacts within this country have been severed. While the Court is aware of the costs associated with an Order of Publication, the Court can make no clear finding as to distinguish this situation from other situations in which the address of the defendant or defendants are unknown.

Therefore, the Court respectfully declines to dispense with the actual publication.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

Exhibit 11.0 - Computation of Earnings per Share

The following represents the computation of earnings per share reflecting the
assumption that the granted shares under the option and warrants plan which
would be dilutive will be exercised.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended                   Nine Months Ended
                                                                     September 30,                       September 30,
                                                             -----------------------------       -----------------------------
                                                                 2003              2002              2003              2002
                                                             -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------
<S>                                                          <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>

Net Earnings-basic and diluted                               $    87,786       $   777,465       $   573,099       $ 2,335,974
                                                             ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========


Weighted average common shares outstanding                    12,341,284        12,289,558        12,324,292        12,173,442

Common share equivalents relating to stock
options, and warrants                                            402,157           123,972           217,732           158,753
                                                             -----------       -----------       -----------       -----------

Adjusted common and common equivalent shares for
diluted computation                                           12,743,441        12,413,530        12,542,024        12,332,195
                                                             ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

Net Earnings Per Share:
     Basic                                                   $      0.01       $      0.06       $      0.05       $      0.19
     Diluted                                                 $      0.01       $      0.06       $      0.05       $      0.19
                                                             ===========       ===========       ===========       ===========

Anti-dilutive options and warrants not included in the
diluted earnings per share computation                           342,442         1,345,697           658,359         1,803,527
</TABLE>


See notes to consolidated financial statements.
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |  |  |                                                                          
|---- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | Corporate Trust Services 9062 Old Annapolis
Road Columbia, Maryland 21045

Citibank N.A.

17g-5 Information
Provider

ratingagencynotice@citi.com

RE: Annual Statement
as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), as Master Servicer,
hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the Reporting Period):

(a) a review of
Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement listed on Schedule A hereto (the Servicing Agreement) has been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all
material respects throughout the Reporting Period, except as described on Schedule B hereto.

February 27, 2014



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin
|Vice President                           
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.                   



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO



---

Schedule A

Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated April 1, 2013 for Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-6, by and among Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc., as Depositor,
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator, and Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee. 1



|1 | The Pooling and Servicing Agreement was amended and restated effective January 1, 2014 to reflect the resignation of Wells Fargo as the Securities Administrator and Paying Agent (among other roles). See the Form
8-K filed on January 6, 2014 for additional information.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2



---

Schedule B

None



3
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 984 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.984

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen

                                 An Act

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide Medicare 
  beneficiary access to eye tracking accessories for speech generating 
devices and to remove the rental cap for durable medical equipment under 
     the Medicare Program with respect to speech generating devices.

    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 ``Steve Gleason Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. PROVIDING MEDICARE BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO EYE TRACKING 
ACCESSORIES FOR SPEECH GENERATING DEVICES.
    (a) In General.--Section 1861(n) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395x(n)) is amended by inserting ``and eye tracking and gaze 
interaction accessories for speech generating devices furnished to 
individuals with a demonstrated medical need for such accessories'' 
after ``appropriate organizations)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to devices furnished on or after January 1, 2016.
SEC. 3. REMOVING THE RENTAL CAP FOR DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT UNDER 
MEDICARE WITH RESPECT TO SPEECH GENERATING DEVICES.
    Section 1834(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395m(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
        (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
        (2) in clause (iii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
        (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:
                ``(iv) in the case of devices furnished on or after 
            October 1, 2015, and before October 1, 2018, which serves 
            as a speech generating device or which is an accessory that 
            is needed for the individual to effectively utilize such a 
            device,''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT (32)(a)


                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 on Form 10-K/A-1 of CMS Energy Corporation
(the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kenneth
Whipple, as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Thomas J. Webb, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of his knowledge:

         (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/ Kenneth Whipple
-----------------------------------
Name:   Kenneth Whipple
Title:  Chairman of the Board and
        Chief Executive Officer
Date:   July 21, 2004




    /s/ Thomas J. Webb
-----------------------------------
Name:   Thomas J. Webb
Title:  Executive Vice President and
        Chief Financial Officer
Date:   July 21, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 19 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 19

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
June 25, 2015, through Friday, July 3, 2015, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Tuesday, 
July 7, 2015, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its 
Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or 
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House 
adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, June 25, 2015, through 
Friday, July 3, 2015, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned 
until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, or until the time of any 
reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his designee, 
after concurrence with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 
the Members of the Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he 
may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
     (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the Senate 
adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, the Senate shall again stand adjourned 
pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 3.  (a) The Speaker or his designee, after consultation with 
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the House 
to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in his 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
     (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the House 
adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall again stand adjourned 
pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.

            Passed the Senate June 24, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 19

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.
```
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 06-1860 ABRAHAM PHILIP, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v . JOHN CRONIN, Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on August 7, 2008 is amended as follows: On page 17, footnote 3, line 2, delete the stray equals sign.
---

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 Quarterly Report
of OrthoLogic Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), each of John M. Holliman, III, Executive Chairman and Principal
Executive Officer of the Company, and Les M. Taeger, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 Company.




Date:
November 9, 2009





/s/ John M. Holliman,
III


John M.
Holliman, III


Executive
Chairman


(Principal
Executive Officer)





/s/ Les M.
Taeger


Les M.
Taeger


Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to OrthoLogic Corp. and will be retained by
OrthoLogic Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.