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.

1 The district court inadvertently referred to plaintiff as Jules J. “Walton.”

2 Neither defendant has been served.

3 United States v. Gobert , 139 F.3d 436 (5 th Cir. 1998). UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20377

Summary Calendar

JULES J. WALTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

OMER A. ILAHI, M.D.;

MOHAMMED ARIF ILAHI, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-98-CV-878)

December 15, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jules J. Walter 1 appeals the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his pro se

suit against Drs. Omar A. Ilahi and Mohammed Arif Ilahi. 2

Accor ding the p ro se pleadings the required liberality, 3 the district court4 Ellison v. Connor

, 153 F.3d 247 (5 th Cir. 1998); Radford v. General Dynam ics

Corp. , 151 F.3d 396 (5 th Cir. 1998).

2 construed same as asserting cl aims of medical malpractice and racial

discrimination in employment. Walter does not allege employment by either

doctor, however, although he complains of racial discrimination in connection

with employment . The pleadings were also construed as a claim of

discriminat ion in public accommodations. Neither defendant is in any way

involved in public accommodations. The trial court construed the pleadings as

a dispute over workers’ compensation and medical malpractice in which the

insertion of assertions of racial discrimination was totally superfluous.

We revie w de novo the dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction. 4

Having done so we agree with the district court that there is neither real nor

apparent jurisdictional basis for Walter’s claims. We agree with the facts found

and analysis made by the district court in its Opinion on dismissal signed

March 25, 1998 and filed March 26, 1998. Walter is cautioned that any further

frivolous filings in this court or in the district court will invite the imposition of

the full range of sanctions available to this court and to the district court.

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7198** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
IVEY WALKER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Max O. Cogburn, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:97

- cr - 00022

- MOC

- 9 )

Submitted : October 11 , 2012 Decided: October 16, 2012

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Ivey Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ivey Walker appeals the district court’s ord er denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Walker , No. 3:97

- cr 00022

- MOC

- 9 (W.D.N.C. June 27, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAF. 

AUSTIN 

Honorable John S. Baker 

County Auditor 

Lnmnr county 

Paris, Texas 

Deal-sir: 

fun8 to taks aare 

90, repuestlng an 

stated quasCion reade 

aereag* 'en WI&& si0w due a lkrg0 ~stl%oir'de-' 

IlnQaent taies* 

*f w&l& like t6 know if we ualz legally eppropriate this money, derlimd irm delinC&ent 

tax oollwC&z36, it and *en oC&leotieb to the 

gsneral hid t6 take oaxe of the &made mabe 

upon tue rwi." 
Ffonorqble John 5. dkor, Page 2 

This department has heretofore ruled on a question 

vry almilar to the question preeented in your inquiry in 

Opinion No. O-869. We enolose a oopy of said opinion for your 

fnr0mdf0n. 

In view or the authoritiee oited in said Opinion Ho. 

O-869, it is our opinion that pour qUki8tiO!l should be answered 

ln the negative.and Is so enewered. 

Trusting that the roregolng rap anewer~ your inqulry , wo are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEYUi%ERALO~l'E2%S 

APPROVED DEC 5,19W 

Urorer Sellers /a/ 

FIRfiT ASS1STANT 

ATTORHISYG-’ 

m 

%8ell Wlllianm 

AStliutaIlt 

APPROVED 

OPIRION 

fX#MIl!TRP

BY B.V.8 

CHA-
, J. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

PETER JASON HELFRICH, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NYE, 

Respondent. 

PETER JASON HELFRICH, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NYE, 

Respondent. 

No 67005 

FILED 

MAR 1 7 2016 

TRACIE K. UNDEMAN 

CLERWFAUPREME COURT 

BY • Y 

DEPUTY CLERK U 

No. 68539 V 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS 

These are pro se petitions for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner 

seeks an order directing the district court to grant his request to withdraw 

appointed counsel and represent himself in his postconviction proceeding. 

Without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised in the documents 

submitted in this matter, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. 

See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petitions DENIED. 

Saitta Pickering 

cc: Hon. David R. Gamble, Senior District Judge 

Peter Jason Helfrich 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County Clerk 

- O192 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 1047A
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,312,212
<SECURITIES>                                 1,815,626
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,596,326
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,872,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          293,115
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,815,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,872,774
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,653
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               567,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,325,026)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,325,026)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,325,026)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (35.24)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (35.24)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1

Certification
under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E. Gemino, as Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile Technologies, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.

Date:  May 9,
2007

| | /s/ Henry E. Gemino  Henry E. Gemino  Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
RETROSPETTIVA'S 10-QSB/A FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,379,929
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,972,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                   155,897
<INVENTORY>                                  6,548,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,238,202
<PP&E>                                         749,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                 118,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,903,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,898,165
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,258,190
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,746,843
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,903,198
<SALES>                                      9,941,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,941,330
<CGS>                                        8,961,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,482,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                463,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                   185,250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   277,871
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20073

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO TORRES TORRES, also known as Sergio Torres,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-383-1

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Sergio Torres Torres

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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

December 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20073 Document: 00512473135 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
No. 13-20073

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-20073 Document: 00512473135 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 Form 10-Q/A
 (Amendment No. 1)
 þ
    
    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from to
 Commission File Number 000-50132
 
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
  Delaware
    
    76-0502785(State or other jurisdiction of
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)Incorporation or organization)333 Clay Street, Suite 3600
    
    (713) 650-3700Houston, Texas 77002-4109
    
    (Registrants telephone number,(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    including area code)
 þ o
 o o
  Large accelerated filer o
Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company þ o þ




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE
  10-Q.
  Exhibit Number:
    
    Description31.1
    
    Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Chief Executive Officer.31.2
    
    Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Principal Financial
Officer.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
(Registrant)Date: February 1, 2011
    By
    /s/ JOHN V. GENOVAJohn V. GenovaPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 1, 2011
    By
    /s/ DAVID J. COLLINSDavid J. CollinsSenior Vice President and Chief   Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         903,649
<SECURITIES>                                   250,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  970,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,775
<INVENTORY>                                    196,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,411,767
<PP&E>                                         334,615
<DEPRECIATION>                                 271,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,387,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,026,795
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                         1,206
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,706,788)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,387,530
<SALES>                                      2,861,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,861,392
<CGS>                                        1,876,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,955,785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,339
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,547
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,254,598)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,407
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,258,005)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (629,148)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,887,153)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION





I, Julia A. Sloat, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by Ohio Power Company, as Servicer, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013 between Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC, as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer, in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and the related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rule 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





6. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee.





Date: March 29, 2019/s/ Julia A. SloatName:  Julia A. SloatTitle: Treasurer and Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function, Ohio Power Company, as Servicer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2442 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2442

 To eliminate Federal mandates for traffic sign retroreflectivity, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 7, 2011

 Mr. Cravaack introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To eliminate Federal mandates for traffic sign retroreflectivity, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Rural County Mandate Relief Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF FEDERAL MANDATES FOR TRAFFIC SIGN 
              RETROREFLECTIVITY.

    (a) Finding.--Congress finds that it should be the responsibility 
of State and local governments to ensure that their traffic signs 
provide necessary levels of retroreflectivity.
    (b) General Rule.--The Secretary of Transportation may not issue, 
implement, or enforce a minimum retroreflectivity level standard for a 
traffic control device that is applicable to a State or local 
government.
    (c) Modification of Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for 
Streets and Highways.--The Secretary shall modify the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 Edition 
(incorporated by reference in part 655 of title 23, Code of Federal 
Regulations), to eliminate the minimum retroreflectivity level 
standards for traffic control devices contained in section 2A.08 of 
such Manual and the schedule for the implementation of such standards 
contained in table I-2 of such Manual.
    (d) Repeal.--Section 406(a) of Public Law 102-388 (106 Stat. 1564) 
is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2526 

To exempt National Forest System lands in Alaska from the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2011 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To exempt National Forest System lands in Alaska from 

the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROADLESS AREA CONSERVATION RULE EXEMP4 TION. 

5 Sections 294.10 through 294.18 of title 36, Code of 

6 Federal Regulations, known as the Roadless Area Con7 servation Rule, do not apply with respect to any National 

8 Forest System lands in Alaska. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43057

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

JOHN ANTHONY SANCHEZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 455

Filed: March 30, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified life sentences, with minimum periods of confinement of twenty

- five years, for three counts of sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age and being a persistent violator,

affirmed

.

Sara B. Thom as, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , D eputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

John Anthony Sanchez was found guilty of three counts of sexual battery of a minor child

sixteen or seventeen years of age, I.C. § 18

- 1508A, and be ing a persistent violator, I.C. § 19

-

2514 . The district court sentenced Sanchez to concurrent unified life terms, with minimum

periods of confinement of twenty

- five years

. Sanchez appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Sanchez ’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.