alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

June 22, 2012

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 11-3876

JOHN C. JUSTICE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOWN OF CICERO, ILLINOIS and LARRY DOMINICK,

Town President,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 10 C 5331

Matthew F. Kennelly, Judge.

Order

Our earlier opinion concluded that Justice’s notice of appeal was timely 

with respect to the district court’s order denying his motion for relief under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60, but not with respect to the district court’s original decision 

dismissing the case. We directed Justice to file a memorandum explaining what 

extraordinary circumstance, see Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), could 

support relief under Rule 60.

Justice has filed a memorandum, but he did not address that question. 

Instead he explained why he filed his post-judgment motion more than 28 days 

after the district court’s decision. That subject is not relevant. The matter that 

1

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

2
No. 11-3876 Page 2

Justice needed to address was whether extraordinary circumstances required the 

district court to change its substantive decision dismissing the complaint.

As our earlier opinion explained, Justice filed and lost the same basic 

claim before; ordinary principles of preclusion doomed this successive suit. The 

district judge added that, even if recent legal developments permit new 

litigation, Justice still loses on the merits. 827 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N.D. Ill. 2011). The 

judge did not abuse his discretion in adhering to that decision in response to the 

request for reconsideration. Justice has not even attempted to explain to this 

court where the district judge erred, let alone what “extraordinary” 

circumstances justify reopening the judgment. The order of the district court 

denying the post-judgment motion for reconsideration therefore is

AFFIRMED.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50418 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ANTONIO CONTRERAS-TERRAZAS, also known as Juan Cisneros, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-165-ALL-KC

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Antonio Contreras-Terrazas concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
ex231.htm


  





 



Exhibit 23.1







Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


 

 


 


We consent to the inclusion in the Prospectus, of which this Registration Statement on Form 10 is a part, of the report dated February 24, 2014 relative to the financial statements of New Century Resources Corporation as of December 31, 2013 and for the period January 1, 2005 (re-entry in development stage) through December 31, 2013.


 


 


We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in such Registration Statement.





 







Messineo & Co, CPAs LLC


Clearwater, Florida


December 3, 2014
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**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 of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
      2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan J. Gotcher, Chief Executive 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
      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/  Alan
                J. GotcherAlan
                J. Gotcher, Chief Executive
                Officer
### NUMBER 13

- 1 1

- 00 3 79

- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ BRUCE CALLAWAY , Appellant ,

v.

BELINDA LONGORIA AND ROSS LONGORIA , Appellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Bruce Callaway , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the
County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 09

- 62132

. Appellant ha s filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have settled
the case. Appellant request s that this Court dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant = s motion to
dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

.
P . 42.1(a). Appellant = s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby
DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent
agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having
dismissed the appeal at appellant = s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,

and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 28th day of July , 20 1 1

.
Consent of KPMG LLP



The Board of Directors
Union Acceptance Corporation:


We consent to incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statements (Nos.
333-09717 and  333-91131)  on Form S-8 of Union  Acceptance  Corporation  of our
report dated August 27, 1998 relating to the consolidated statements of earnings
(loss),  shareholders'  equity and cash flows for the year ended June 30,  1998,
which  report  appears in the June 30, 2000 Annual  Report on Form 10-K of Union
Acceptance Corporation.




/s/ KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
September 26, 2000
##### 



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 of Horseshoe Gaming Holding Corp.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jack B. Binion, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



|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.

| |     |                                                        
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Jack B. Binion                                     
| |     |                                                        
| |     | Jack B. Binion, Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22016]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

41 CFR Appendix C to Chapter 301 and Parts 304-2, 304-3, and 304-6

[FTR Case 2016-301; Docket No. 2016-0008, Sequence 1]
RIN 3090-AJ69


Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Clarification of Payment in Kind 
for Speakers at Meetings and Similar Functions; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide Policy, U.S. General Services 
Administration (GSA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA) is withdrawing FTR 
Case 2016-301; Clarification of Payment in Kind for Speakers at 
Meetings and Similar Functions. This proposed rule is being withdrawn 
so that GSA can develop a comprehensive revision to the Federal Travel 
Regulation.

DATES: The proposed rule published on August 15, 2016 (81 FR 53979) is 
withdrawn as of October 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For clarification of content, contact 
Ms. Jill Denning, Program Analyst, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 
202-208-7642. Contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 
F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, 202-501-4755, for information 
pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FTR case 
2016-301.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Appendix C to Chapter 301 and Parts 304-
2, 304-3, and 304-6

    Government employees, Travel and transportation expenses.

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 5707, and 5 U.S.C. 5707; 31 U.S.C. 1353.

    Dated: October 5, 2017.
Allison Fahrenkopf Brigati,
Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-22016 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-14-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          33,431
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,353
<PP&E>                                          13,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,808
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,353
<SALES>                                         89,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,022
<CGS>                                           73,839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,426
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,146
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,146
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2968 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2968

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the required 
  reduction in the amount of the accelerated death benefit payable to 
certain terminally ill persons insured under Servicemembers' Group Life 
              Insurance or Veterans' Group Life Insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2009

Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona (for herself and Mr. Jones) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the required 
  reduction in the amount of the accelerated death benefit payable to 
certain terminally ill persons insured under Servicemembers' Group Life 
              Insurance or Veterans' Group Life Insurance.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF REDUCTION IN AMOUNT OF ACCELERATED DEATH 
              BENEFIT FOR TERMINALLY ILL PERSONS INSURED UNDER SGLI OR 
              VGLI.

    (a) Elimination of Reduction.--Section 1980(b)(1) of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ``reduced by'' and all that 
follows through ``the Secretary''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to a payment of an accelerated death benefit under 
section 1980 of title 38, United States Code, made after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.01




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER




I, Gary Herman, certify that:




In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, 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) 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: June 28, 2011/s/ Gary HermanGary HermanPresident
#### In the Matter of Derrick R. Williams, Sr., an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[858 NYS2d 922]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2000. He was conditionally admitted to practice in Missouri in 2001, where he maintained an office for the practice of law.

By order dated May 31, 2005, the Supreme Court of Missouri found that respondent had failed to sufficiently comply with the *1113conditions of his admission to practice and had provided disciplinary authorities with incorrect information. As a result, the court imposed upon respondent a stayed suspension, placing him on probation through May 31, 2007 with further conditions. By order dated January 4, 2008, the Supreme Court of Missouri found respondent in violation of his probation. The court revoked the probation, lifted its stay and suspended respondent for no less than one year.

Petitioner now moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline upon respondent pursuant to this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed a reply affidavit which does not establish any of the available defenses to reciprocal discipline *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]), and we therefore grant petitioner’s motion. We further conclude that respondent should be suspended for a period of one year.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Rose, Malone, Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondent, for the period of his suspension, is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; respondent is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority; or to give another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of the Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
Exhibit 32.1
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M. Searles, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ MICHAEL M. SEARLES   **Michael M. Searles,** **Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**
Date: June 7, 2005
### TEEEATTO~ZNXCY 

## GENERAL OF TEXAS

Gerald C. Mann

Honorable GeorgeH. Sheppard opinion NO. O-2859 Comptroller of Public Accounts Austin, Texas Re: Transfer of delinquent tax liens and whether homestead may be foreclosed upon for the pagment of delinquent taxes Dear Sir: thereon.

In your letter of October 26, 1940, you request
our opinion in substance (1)whether a personmay at the request of the owner of a piece of propertypay taxesdelinquent thereonand receive a valid transfer of the tax lien and (2)whether a homestead may be foreclosed upon legally for the sale of taxes due thereon.

Relating to of our opinionNo. O-2 30 concerning the status of a trans-~ 5our firstquestion we enclose a copy

feree of the tax lien underArticle 7345a,Vernon's Civil Statutes. As pointed out in that opinion said Article 7345a is largely declaratory of the rights of subrogation -isting prior to the passage thereof. Since in that-opinionwe went rather fully into thequestion of the rights acquiredby the transferee of a tax lien we deem no further discussion necessary underyour firstquestion other than to say that in our opinFon saidArticle 7345a lavalid and by complyingwith its provisions a person may at therequest of a land ownerpay taxes delinquent on land ownedby the latter and obtain a valid transfer of the tax lien from whatever taxing authoritymay be due the taxes. Your letter isaccompaniedby a form which your officehas promulgated for use in transferring tax liens. We have examined that form and find that it complies fully with the requirements of Article 7345a and its use thereforebears
our approval.

It has been well establishedby the decisions of our courts that thehomestead is liable and may be foreclosed upon not only for the taxes which are assessed upon itbut also for the penalties which the law prescribes in case of failure to make payment of such taxes. City of Sang Antonio v.Toepperwein 133 s.w.416,by the Supreme Court; Tate v. McGraw, 73 S.W. (2) 559; Stephensv. City of El Paso, 81 S.W. (2) 149. Accordingly
we answer your secondquestion in the affirmative. GRL:rw:hp Yours very truly, Approved Encl. APPROVEDNOV 1, 1940 ATT~~lZEi~LKIFAS ~~~:~~ee /a/ Gerald C. 3iaun By Glenn R. Lewis,Assistant by BWB ATTORNEY GENERAL **OF** TEXAS Chairman
Order entered April 29 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00556
- CR JASON ALLEN SKINNER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. F12
- 00955
- M



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appell ant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This app eal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE