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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 03-10614 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RALPH DIXON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:02-CR-287-3-L

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Ralph Dixon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Dixon was notified of counsel’s motion and did not file a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. The record has not beenadequately developed to consider ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Brewster , 137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, counsel’s motion United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-10614 -2- for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

October 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51356

Summary Calendar

RAMON ALBERTO GARCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TIMOTHY KEITH; ERNESTO GUTIERREZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-02-CV-311)

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint and denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant Ramon Alberto Garcia, TDCJ-ID

# 792815, filed a notice of appeal in this court, which we have

construed as a motion to proceed IFP. Garcia is challenging the

district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good

faith. S ee Baugh v. Taylor

, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(c)(3); F E D

. R. A PP

. P. 24(a). The district court2

dismissed Garcia’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).

Garcia asserts that the district court mistakenly assumed that

the prison was on “lock-down” status or that the dining hall was

full, erred in finding his assertions of the defendants’

involvement to be “conclusory” and “unsupported,” erred in

addressing his claim of “severe” living conditions, and err ed in

finding his claim of denial of access to the law library unlikely.

He also asserts that the district court was biased.

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that Garcia

has not shown a non-frivo lous issue for appeal. S ee Howard v.

King

, 707 F.2 d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). We uphold the district

court’s order certifying that the appeal was not taken in good

faith. We also conclude that the instant appeal is without

arguable merit and is frivolous. Garcia’s motion to proceed IFP is

DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh , 117

F.3d at 202 and n.24; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of Garcia’s complaint in the district court and

the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a “strike”

for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). S ee Adepegba v. Hammons

,

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Garcia that once he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any

facility unless he is under imminent danger of seriou s physical

injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Craig C. Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Beartooth Platinum
    Corporation (formerly Idaho Consolidated Metals Corp.); and
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
    statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
    make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
    were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
    report.

|Date: | October 22, 2003 |                        
|----- | ---------------- | -----------------------
|      |                  |                        
|      |                  | /s/ Craig C. Smith   
|      |                  | Craig C. Smith         
|      |                  | Chief Financial Officer
|      |                  | & Corporate Secretary  

---
Exhibit 33.7



|     |  |                          |  |                                                               
|---- |  | ------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | NATIONAL
TAX SEARCH, LLC |  | 303 E Wacker Drive, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60601 (312)
233-6440

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2015, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank(the
Servicer).

National Tax Search, LLC (NTS) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2015 and for the period from
January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR). NTS has used the servicing criteria
communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (1)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122 (d)2(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii)
(the Applicable Servicing Criteria) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC
Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTSs TaxQ system (the
Platform Transactions).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has
concluded that the NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2015 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as Vendor to
Servicer



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Lori D. Eshoo           
|Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO
|                            
|January 18, 2016
* 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

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40934

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MEDINA-SALDANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-270-1 

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Medina-Saldana appeals the sentence imposed following

entry of his guilty plea to a charge of being found in the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Medina

argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are

unconstitutional. 

Medina-Saldana acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

but he asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by
No. 03-40934

-2-

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to

preserve his argument for Supreme Court review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation

omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Jacqueline GREEN, and Theodore Major Green, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

Nos. 06-71856, 06-71860.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Jacqueline Green, Moorpark, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants.

Donald L. Korb, Acting Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Marion E.M. Erickson, Esq., Eileen J. O’Connor, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jacqueline and Theodore Green appeal pro se from the tax court’s decision upholding deficiency determinations for 2000 and 2001. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review de novo the tax court’s interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”), *Ewing v.*Comm’r, 489 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The tax court properly determined that the Social Security benefits Mrs. Green received in 2000 and 2001 are not excludable from taxable gross income under I.R.C. § 104. The plain language of I.R.C. § 86(a) expressly includes Social Security benefits as taxable income. *See*26 U.S.C. § 86(a) (“gross income ... includes social security benefits”). Moreover, the benefit payments received under the Social Security Act are not restricted to cases of work-related injury or sickness, as required under I.R.C. § 104. *See Take v. Comm’r,*804 F.2d 553, 557 (9th Cir.1986) (“Statutes that do not restrict the payment of benefits to cases of work-related injury or sickness are not considered to be ‘workmen’s compensation acts’ under section 104.”); *see also*42 U.S.C. § 423 (providing Social Security disability benefits regardless of causation).

The tax court properly determined that the Greens’ uncollected personal injury judgment does not qualify as a deductible loss under I.R.C. § 165(c) because that provision limits deductions to “losses of property not connected with a trade or business or a transaction entered into for profit, if such losses arise from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from theft.” *See*26 U.S.C. § 165(c).

The tax court did not err by failing to address the statutes of limitations because the Greens failed to raise the issue, and, in any event, the record demonstrates the Commissioner noticed the deficiencies within the applicable limitations periods.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 5 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15738 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 92- 00043- C R - 001 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s L A B A R R O N P E N D L E T O N , a .k .a . B r ig h t E y e s , a .k .a . R e d , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 5, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

L a t i s haV . C ol vi n, appoi nt e d c ouns e l f orL aba rr on P e ndl e t on, ha s f i l e d a m ot i on t o w i thdr a w on appe a l , s upport e d by abr i e f pr e pa r e d pur s ua ntt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde nt r e vi e w of

the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof th e ap p e a l is c o rr e c t. B e c au s e in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r d r e v e a ls n o arg u ab l e i ssu es o f m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , a nd the re vo ca t i on of P endl et on ’ s s up ervi se d rel ea se and res ul t i ng se nt ence ar e A FFI R M ED .
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              This   schedule    contains   summary    financial
                              information    extracted    from   the   financial
                              statements of Jewett-Cameron  Trading Company Ltd.
                              which are included in its quarterly  report,  Form
                              10-Q for the quarter  ended  November 30, 1999 and
                              is  qualified in its entirety by reference to such
                              financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                              619,210
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     1,103,961
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                       2,890,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,644,121
<PP&E>                            1,493,318
<DEPRECIATION>                       30,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    6,428,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               478,617
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                          1,795,157
<OTHER-SE>                        4,155,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      6,428,984
<SALES>                           4,149,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  4,149,716
<CGS>                            (3,497,740)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    (4,037,940)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     121,173
<INCOME-TAX>                         45,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         76,173
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.06



</TABLE>
SA’ ID SHABAZZ

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3009

Opinion filed May 5, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

– Original Jurisdiction

.

Don Pumphrey, Jr., and Nathan Robert Prince, Tallahassee , for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Ana Cristina Martine z, General

Counsel and Christian D. Lake, Assistant General Counsel of The Justice

Administrative Commission, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed

.

ROWE, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC v. TOWER’S WAREHOUSE, Inc.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Feb. 9, 1951.

*292Max J. Gwertzman, New York City, for plaintiff.

Hill, Rivkins & Middleton, New York City, by (Meyer Levy, Gregory S. Rivkins, Joseph T. McGowan, all of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

In this action to recover the value of property stored in defendant’s warehouse pursuant to a bailment contract and destroyed allegedly by reason of defendant’s negligence, plaintiff has raised objections to interrogatories served by the defendant.

Interrogatories are designed to discover evidence for possible use at the trial, and, by narrowing the issues, to expedite the trial. Aktiebolaget Vargos v. Clark, D.C., 8 F.R.D. 635. The range of inquiry permitted by Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., is governed by the limitation that the matters be relevant to the subject matter of the action, an'd the standard of relevancy contemplated is not used in the sense of admissibility of evidence at a trial. U. S. v. Columbia Steel Co., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 183; Gutowitz v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 144. A test is whether the testimony sought may reasonably be expected to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Rule 26(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff objects to interrogatories 2(e), 2(f) and 2(g) on the ground of irrelevancy. The said interrogatories concern the relationship between plaintiff and the seller from whom it acquired the goods and whether the seller was the agent of plaintiff. Defendant’s answer raises the issue of ownership, so plainly these matters are relevant, and the interrogatories are proper.

The remaining exceptions concern interrogatories 5, 6, 7 and 8 which relate to storage, packing and transportation of the articles prior to delivery to defendant. Plaintiff excepts to these interrogatories on the ground that the warehouse receipts issued by defendant indicate that the property was received in good condition. Defendant contends that the receipts merely state that the articles were in apparent good condition when received but that no examination of the contents was made. The information sought might be useful to the defendant as a means of discovering evidence of the condition and value of the property, and these matters are relevant to the subject matter of the action. However, inquiry will not be permitted as to details prior to the time when the goods were last stored, packed and transported before delivery to defendant. Since plaintiff must prove that the articles were in good condition at the time of delivery, information as to their condition prior to the period indicated is not relevant.

Settle order on notice.
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) / Rule 15d-14(a), promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Richard A. GoeggelRichard A. GoeggelVice President, Finance and Treasurer
BLUEGREEN CORPORATION


        CLERK'S CERTIFICATE


        401(k) Match Increase for Bluegreen Corporation's Retirement Savings Plan


        April 28, 2008


                            This Clerk's Certificate is delivered pursuant to a request from SunTrust Bank that Bluegreen Corporation ("Bluegreen") verifies and confirms its Board of Directors' approval of the 401K match increase for Bluegreen's Retirement Savings Plan.


        I, James R. Martin, hereby certify that:


        	1.	I am now, and at all times mentioned herein have been, the duly elected, qualified and acting Clerk of Bluegreen.

                

                
	2.	At the Board of Directors' meeting of Bluegreen held on November 21, 2007, at which a quorum was present, the following resolution was unanimously approved:

                

                
	 	RESOLVED, that the 401(k) Match Increase and the Payment of Plan Fees as described on the attached Exhibit "A" is hereby APPROVED; and, any member of the 401(k) Advisory Committee be, and hereby is, authorized and directed, to take any and all additional actions as may be necessary or appropriate to implement the aforementioned resolutions including, but not limited to, the execution
                and delivery of any agreements, certificates, instruments, documents, consents and other similar documents necessary or appropriate to effectuate the 401(k) Match Increase and the Payment Plan Fees.



                            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed this Clerk's Certificate as of the date first written above.


        	 	/s/ James R. Martin	 
	 	James R. Martin, Clerk


        

        

        Exhibit "A"


        The Bluegreen 401(k) Advisory Committee with the support of management recommended that the Corporation's matching contribution for the Plan be increased from 50% of the first 3% of a participant's annual compensation with an annual cap of $1000.00 to 100% of the first 3% of a participant's annual compensation with an annual cap of $1500.00 (the "401(k) Match Increase").