alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00792

- CV

Richard Leon ROSE, Appellant

v.

Peter G. ADAMS, Appellee
From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI04064 Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On Novem ber 7 , 2019
, A ppellant Richard L. Rose filed a notice of appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1(a). The same day , a deputy clerk of this court notified A ppellant in writing that our records do not show that the $ 20 5.00 filing fee ha s been paid. Further, our records do not conclusively establish that A ppellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fee. See id. R. 5 (requiring fees in civil cases); id. R. 20 .1 (waiving appellate court costs under certain circumstances ).
Our Novem ber 7 , 2019 letter warned A ppellant that if the filing fee was not paid by November 18
, 2019
, the appeal could be stricken by th is court . To date, this court has not received payment or a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs

. See id. ; see also T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145.
Our letter also advised A ppellant that the docketing statement must be filed with this court by November 1 8 , 2019

. See id. R. 32.1; 4 TH T EX

. A PP

. (S AN A NTONIO ) L OC

. R. 5.2
, http://www.txcourts.gov/4thcoa/practice

- before

- the

- court/local

- rules.aspx

. To date, no docketing statement has been file d.
We ORDER Appellant to file a docketing statement within TEN DAYS of the date of this order.We ORDER A ppellant to show cause in writing within T E N DAYS of the date of th is

order that either (1) the $ 20 5 .00 f iling fee ha s been paid, or (2) A ppellant i s entitled to appeal without pa ying the filing fee.
If A ppellant fail s to respond as ordered , this appeal will be dismissed without further notice

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 5, 42.3(c); In re W.J.C. , No. 04

- 05

- 00532

- CV, 2005 WL 3 477883 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Dec. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m y hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of December, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ
, Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**WALTER CEO,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 118 EM 2016** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6th day of September, 2016, the Application fo r Leave to File** 

**Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extraordinary Relief, to** 

**the extent it seeks mandamus relief, are** GRANTED **. The Court of Common Pleas of**

**Philadelphia County is** DIRECTED **to adjudicate Petitioner’s pending filings within 90**

**days.**

**The Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to serve this order on the President Judge of the**

**Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.**
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 10157]

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Repentant Monk: Illusion and Disillusion in the Art of Chen Hongshou,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the University of California, Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, Berkeley, California, from on or about October 27, 2017, until on or about January 28, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

 Alyson Grunder,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2017-22149 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
* 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 October 18, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50659 Summary Calendar

BOBBY GENE ANNIS; GREGORIO CASTANEDA; MICHAEL BRIGGS; G. H. LINCECUM, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; JAMES B. FOX, Warden, Bastrop Federal Correctional Institution; DEBORA WARREN, in her individual capacity and as an employee of the Bastrop Federal Correctional Institution, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CV-539

-------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their lawsuit alleging that the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment rights while the plaintiffs were incarcerated at the Bastrop Federal Correctional Institution. This court reviews

a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure de novo. Edwards v. Johnson, 209 F.3d 772, 776 (5th Cir. 2000).No. 05-50659 -2- In their first issue, the plaintiffs challenge the district court’s dismissal based upon the general Rule 12(b)(6) standard but fail to adequately brief their argument. Accordingly, that issue is waived. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED . R. APP . P. 28(a)(9). The plaintiffs also contend that the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was

erroneous because there was no evidence in the record that any administrative remedies existed, other than the remedies that the plaintiffs pursued. As noted in district court, the Bureau of Prisons has established an administrative remedy program. 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.13-542.15; see also Lundy v. Osborn, 555 F.2d 534, 534-35 (5th Cir. 1977). For the purpose of meeting the exhaustion requirement set forth at 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), it is the plaintiffs who must allege exhaustion with sufficient specificity. See Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292, 294, 296 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Days v. Johnson, 322 F.3d 863, 866 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Since the amendment of § 1997e, this Court has taken a strict approach to the exhaustion requirement.”). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ argument lacks merit. As the plaintiffs have failed to challenge the district court’s dismissal on any other basis, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         7,604,854
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,860,226
<PP&E>                                         2,421,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,352)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,140,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          626,283
<BONDS>                                        8,250,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,061
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,254,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,140,653
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,428,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             166,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,595,762)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,595,762)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,595,762)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.34)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     75,463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,494
<PP&E>                                          25,401
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,594
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,400
<BONDS>                                         42,005
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,712
<SALES>                                        149,531
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,531
<CGS>                                          124,045
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,513
<INCOME-TAX>                                       565
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                948
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Enoch Birotte, Also Known as Jean Bruno, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 461]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Harkavy, J.), rendered October 24, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Report) of
the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 May 10, 2006
    /s/ Charles R. WaldronCharles R. WaldronSenior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT R AYM OND NIC HOLS; DANIEL NIC HOLS, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. C ITY OF R IVER SIDE; DANIEL M AC IAS; M IC HAEL FOSTER ,

De fe nda nts-Appe lla

nts,
and STEPHANIE WY SINGER ; C OM M UNITY C A RE R A HAB C ENTER , LLC , a C a lifornia

Lim ite d Lia

bility C om pa ny , De fe nda

nts. No. 18-55135 D.C . No. 5:14-c v-00364-JGB -SP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Je sus G. B e rna l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 15, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# F IL ED AUG 22 2019 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.B e fore : SC HR OEDER and GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s, a

nd LEFKOW , ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nts, C ity of R i ve rside polic e offic e rs Da nie l M a c ia s and M ic ha e l Foste r, a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing sum m a ry judgm e nt on qua lifie d im m unity . Pla intiffs R a

ym ond a nd Da nie l Nic hols we re arre ste d for a lle g e dly ste a ling a n a i r m attre s s tha

t the y ha d re nt e d on be ha lf of the i r m othe r. The y we re re le a se d from ja i l the following da

y , a nd no c ha rge s we re file d . W e pre viously he ld tha t the s e offic e rs la c ke d proba ble c a use to a rre st the brothe rs. N

ic h ols v
. Mac ias , 695 F. App’ x 291, 292–93 (9th C i r. 2017) (unpublishe d de c ision). The only issue he re is whe the r it wa s re a sona ble for De fe nda

nts to be lie ve tha

t the re wa s proba

ble c a use so a s to re c e ive im

m unity from Pla intiffs’ c la im s. Rose nbaum
v . W ashoe C ty . , 663 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ). W e have he ld tha

t the e xiste nc e of a

disputeove r the am ount of a bill or the right to posse ss a

re c i vil in na

ture and ordina

rily do not give

rise to proba

ble c a use to a rre st. Ste v e ns v . Rose , 298 F.3d 880, 883–84 (9th C ir. 2002); Alle n v . C ity of Portland , 73 F.3d 232, 237 (9th C ir. 1996); K e nne dy v . L.A. Polic e De

p't , 901 F.2d 702, 706 (9th C ir.1990), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by

Ac t Up!/Portland v
. Bagle y , 988 F.2d 868, 872–73 (9th C ir.1993). This wa s suc h a dispute . As note d,

* * The Honora

ble Joa n H. Le fkow, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion. 2the o ffic e rs la c ke d proba ble c a u se . R aym ond a

nd Da nie l told the

polic e offic e rs that the y ha d re nte d the m attre s s, a n d the y produc e d the re nta l re c e ipt a nd
a gre e m e nt for the offic e rs’ re vie w. The only disputewa s whe the r the brothe rs c ould m ove tha

t m attre ss be fore de live ry of a ne w one . The distric t c ourt the re fore prope rly he ld tha t De fe nda nts we re not e ntitle d to im m unity be c a use the la wwa s c le arly e sta blishe d at the tim e of Pla intiffs’ arre st in 2013. AFFIRM E D
.

3
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20145

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN JOSE BLANCO-VASQUEZ, also known as Juan Blanco-Vasquez, also

known as Juan Blanco,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-526-1

Before KING, JOLLY, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Jose Blanco-Vasquez has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Blanco-Vasquez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 15, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 09-20145

2

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

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NitroMed, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Lawrence E. Bloch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|Dated: March 10, 2005 |  | /s/LAWRENCE E. BLOCH, M.D., J.D.Lawrence E. Bloch, M.D., J.D.
Chief Financial Officer, Chief Business Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          17,393
<SECURITIES>                                   107,299
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                       935
<INVENTORY>                                        567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,751
<PP&E>                                          31,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,180
<BONDS>                                          4,366
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       457,864
<OTHER-SE>                                   (131,891)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,174
<SALES>                                          3,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,682
<CGS>                                            4,107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   788
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 441
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,916)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (22,772)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,772)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Altair  Nanotechnologies  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Edward Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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/ Edward H. Dickinson
-------------------------------
Edward H. Dickinson
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2003