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

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS  60604

October 16, 2014

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 12‐1723

WARNETHER A. MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

CATERPILLAR, INCORPORATED,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 09‐cv‐2172

Michael P. McCuskey, Judge.

O R D E R

On consideration of the Petition For Panel Rehearing filed by Plaintiff‐Appellant

on October 7, 2014, all members of the original panel have voted to DENY the Petition

For Panel Rehearing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition For Panel Rehearing is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the opinion issued in the above‐entitled case on

September 9, 2014, is hereby amended as follows:

On page 5: in the second full paragraph, the last sentence

starting “We are not persuaded ...” is deleted;
Appeal no. 12‐1723           Page 2

On pages 5‐6: the last paragraph of page 5 (starting “First,

Muhammad’s argument ...”) ending on page 6 is deleted.

On page 6: the first sentence of the first full paragraph is

modified so that “Second, even if we set that problem aside,

another more” is replaced by “A”, so that the sentence

reads “A fundamental obstacle ....”

On page 8: the first full paragraph (starting “The first

problem is ...”) is deleted, and the first two sentences of the

second full paragraph are deleted, such that the second full

paragraph begins with “Muhammad has not identified ...”

-2-
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22530]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IS17-522-000]


Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference; Colonial Pipeline 
Company

    On September 29, 2017, a notice was issued stating that a technical 
conference will be held to address the effect of the tariff changes 
proposed by Colonial Pipeline Company in its June 23, 2017 filing in 
this docket. The technical conference will be held on Wednesday, 
October 25, 2017 at 9:00 a.m., in a room to be designated at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    For interested persons who cannot attend the technical conference, 
a call-in number has been established. Dial in from your phone:

From within local Wash, DC area 202-502-6888
From outside Local Wash, DC area 1-877-857-1347
Meeting ID: 0255

    Dated: October 12, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22530 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marc Watkins, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[666 NYS2d 866]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed *(see, People v Saunders,*190 AD2d 1092, 1093, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.—Robbery, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.
| Name of Subsidiary |   | Jurisdictionof Incorporation |   | OwnershipPercentage |   |
|------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
| Progressive Concepts, Inc.   |   | Texas                             |   |                | 100    | % |
| Teletouch Licenses, Inc.     |   | Delaware                          |   |                | 100    | % |
| Visao Systems, Inc.          |   | Delaware                          |   |                | 100    | % |
| TLL Georgia, Inc.            |   | Delaware                          |   |                | 100    | % |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0123

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

JASON HARRISON,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Luke Berger, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 18 2020

11/18/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0123
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 Network Commerce Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, N.
Scott Dickson, Chief Executive Officer and 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:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.



                                                   /s/ N. Scott Dickson
Dated: August 14, 2002                             ____________________________
                                                   N. Scott Dickson
                                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 06-7804 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NEVILLE A. HUTCHINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:01-cr-00206-JCC; 1:03-cv-00683-JCC)

Submitted: March 29, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neville A. Hutchinson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Neville A. Hutchinson seeks to appeal the district

court’s denial of several incomprehensible pleadings construed by

the court as post-judgment motions in Hutchinson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) proceeding. By failing to challenge the district court’s

characterization of his pleadings or the grounds for denying

relief, Hutchinson has waived appellate review of the district

court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its

review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 92-4120

Summary Calendar

CURTIS SHABAZZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. LYNAUGH, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(September 29, 1992)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DUHÉ and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Shabazz, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

,

appeals the dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) of his civil rights

suit. The district court found an absence of a significant injury,

a requirement under then controlling circu it precedents. Those

precedents were overruled by the intervening deci sion of the1

_____ U.S.

_____, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).

2 Spears v. McCotter

, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). In

Spears we approved the use of a limited evidentiary hearing in lieu

of a written questionnaire to flesh out the factual and legal bases

for pro se prisoner complaints. These hearings were recorded on

audiotape, a procedure which, after transcription, produced what we implicitly approved as a sufficient appellate record. See Wesson

v. Oglesby

, 910 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1990). In the present case, as

in several others previously reviewed by us including 92-4125,

Sparks v. Murphy ; 92-4191, Green v. Ward ; 92-4183, Green v. Scott ;

92-4256, Aguilar v. Terrell ; 92-4205, W inn v. Turner ; 92-4298,

Graves v. Russell ; and 92-4233, Holman v. Reed

, the hearing was recorded on videotape which is superior to the audiotape and, for

Spears hearings purposes, is considered a sufficient record of the

proceedings.

2 Supreme Court in H udson v. McMillian

. 1 We vacate and remand for

reconsideration in light of Hudson

.

Shabazz filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against various

officials of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a

corrections officer at the Eastham Unit, complaining of excessive

force which resulted in injury to his knee and shoulder. Following

a S pears 2 hearing, and determining that no significant injury w a s

sustained, the district court exercised the authority vested by

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and dismissed the in forma pauperis suit as

frivolous. Shabazz timely appealed.

In overruling this court's precedents, the Hudson Court held

that in order to establish an eighth amendment violation in an

excessive force case, the complainant need not plead and prove

significant injury as a necessary requisite for his claim.

Accordingly, we m ust vacate the dismissal and remand for

reconsideration in light of the teachings of Hudson

. In this3

_____ U.S. at

_____, 112 S.Ct. at 999, 117 L.Ed.2d at 166

(citing Whitley v. Albers

, 475 U.S. 312, 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1085,

89 L.Ed.2d 251, 261-62 (1986)).

3 reconsideration the district court should look to: the extent of

the injury suffered; the need for application of force; the

relationship between that need and the amount of force used; the

threat reasonably perceived by responsible officials; and any

efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.

Hudson

. 3

VACATED and REMANDED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6186

JOHN JAMES BELL, a/k/a Omar Abdel-Al-Mumit, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden of Kershaw Correctional 

Institution, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:08-cv-03799-GRA) 

Submitted: May 20, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John James Bell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

John James Bell appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his petition for writ of mandamus. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Bell that failure 

to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation 

could waive appellate review of a district court order based 

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Bell failed to 

file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation. Rather, Bell filed objections that did not 

address the magistrate judge’s findings and were construed by 

the district court as a general objection to the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Bell 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court. 

2 
3 

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
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent

PVF Capital Corp.



|                                |  |                                            |  |                     |  
|------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------- | -
|Subsidiaries (1)                |  | State or OtherJurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |  
|Park View Federal Savings Bank  |  | United States                              |  | 100                 | %
|PVF Service Corporation         |  | Ohio                                       |  | 100                 | %
|PVF Mortgage Corp.              |  | Ohio                                       |  | 100                 | %
|PVF Community Development Corp. |  | Ohio                                       |  | 100                 | %
|Mid Pines Land Co.              |  | Ohio                                       |  | 100                 | %
|PVF Holdings Inc.               |  | Ohio                                       |  | 100                 | %



|(1) | The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
Stockholders included as Exhibit 13 in this Form 10-K.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(B) OR RULE 15D - 14(B) AND 18 U.S.C.
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inova Technology
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report" ), I, Adam
Radly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

| | By:
      /s/ Adam Radly
| | ------------------------
| | Adam Radly              
| | Chief Executive Officer 
| | September 19, 2011      

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that
this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.

                                  By:       /s/ John R. Male
                                      --------------------------------------
                                      Name: John R. Male
                                      Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                             Executive Officer

                                  By:      /s/ C. Keith Swaney
                                      ---------------------------------------
                                      Name: C. Keith Swaney
                                      Title: President, Chief Operating Officer
                                             and Treasurer

Date: September 10, 2004
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Internet Pictures
Corporation (collectively, the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald Strickland, Chief Executive 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:

         (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 operation of the
Company.



/s/ Donald Strickland
-----------------------
Donald Strickland
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003
Exhibit 13.2




Certification Pursuant To


18 US C Section 1350,


As Adopted Pursuant To


Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Tower Semiconductor Ltd.  (the “Registrant”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Oren Shirazi, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.




/s/ Oren ShiraziOren ShiraziSenior VP & Chief Financial Officer







April 30, 2010




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3389-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice corrects the previous                         **Federal Register**                         notice of an emergency declaration for the State of Alabama (FEMA-3389-EM), dated September 11, 2017, and related determinations.                    

# DATES:

This correction was issued on October 11, 2017.

      ( print page 48842)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    FEMA previously published a                     **Federal Register**                     notice on October 2, 2017 at 82 FR 45875 providing notice of a Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of Alabama. That notice incorrectly stated that all 67 counties in the State of Alabama and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians had been designated as eligible for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program. The 67 counties in the State of Alabama and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians are only designated as eligible for emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.                

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-22747 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially effect, the
Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ John J. Dee

John J. DeeChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>   1



                                   Exhibit 21



                              Florsheim Group Inc.
                           Subsidiaries of the Company


The Florsheim Shoe Store Company - Northeast, a Delaware corporation

The Florsheim Shoe Store Company - West, a Delaware corporation

L.J. O'Neill Shoe Co., a Missouri corporation

Florsheim Occupational Footwear, Inc., a Missouri corporation

Florsheim Australia Limited, an Australian corporation

Florsheim Canada, Inc., a Canadian corporation

Florsheim Europe S.R.L., an Italian corporation

Florsheim Pacific Limited, a Hong Kong corporation

Florsheim S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation

Florsheim B.V., a Netherlands corporation

Florsheim Limited, a U.K. corporation











                                       60