alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Khen T. HUYNH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 06-75806.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 1, 2008.

Khen T. Huynh, San Diego, CA, pro se.

Robert R. Di Trolio, Washington, DC, Donald L. Korb, Acting Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, Eileen J. O’Connor, Esq., Bethany B. Hauser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Khen T. Huynh appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision upholding the denial of relief under 26 U.S.C. § 6015 from joint liability with her husband for tax deficiencies in 1996 and 1997. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax Court’s factual findings, including the determination that Huynh is not entitled to innocent spouse relief under § 6015. *See Guth v. Comm’r,*897 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir.1990) (reviewing claim for relief under predecessor statute). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err in finding that Huynh meaningfully participated in prior proceedings concerning her tax liability for 1996 and 1997 given that she prepared the tax returns, signed documents, participated in pretrial preparations and settlement negotiations, and testified on the substance of the tax matters at the prior trial. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6015(g)(2).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
CLD

- 041 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 15

- 3463

___________ IN RE: NATURAL BORN CITIZEN PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE; HAROLD W. VAN ALLEN , Petitioner s

______________________ ______________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to Civ. No. 1

- 09

- cv
- 00253 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

November 5, 2015 Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 19, 2015 )

_________ OPINION *

_________ PER CURIAM
Harold Van Allen 1 petition s for a writ of mandamus. For the reasons below, we will deny the petition.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 As a layperson, Van Allen may not represent ot her parties. See Osei

- Afriyie v. Med. Coll. of Pa. , 937 F.2d 876, 882

- 83 (3d Cir. 1991) (non

- lawyer parent cannot represent interests of his children). Thus, we will consider the petition as filed only by Van Allen.2

While the petition is difficult to understand , it appears that P etitioner seek s a court order creating a multi

- district litigation in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He
also seek s to add several federal agencies as parties to the consolidated litigation

. The writ of mandamus will issue only in extraordinary circumstances. See Sporck
v. Peil , 759 F.2d 312, 314 (3d Cir. 1985). As a precondition to the issuance of the writ, the petitioner must establish that there is no alternative remedy or other adequate means

to obtain the desired relief, and the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). The case and appeal in this Circuit that they seek to include in the proposed
consol idated litigation are Kerchner v. Obama , D.N.J. Civ. No. 09

- 00253, and Kerchner
v. Obama , C.A. No. 09

- 4209. However, these cases have already been decided , and no further litigation is needed. 2 Thus, there is no reason to consolidate these cases with any
others cases. We note that P etitioner was not listed as a party to the prior District Court case or appeal.
Because P etitioner has not shown a clear and indisputable right to the relief sought, we will deny the mandamus petition

. We warn P etitioner t hat frivolous and vexatious litigation may lead to sanctions and filing restrictions.

2 The District Court determined that t he Kerchner plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the complaint. Kerchner v. Obama , 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009). We affirmed the District Court’s decision and concluded that the appeal was frivolous. Kerchner v. Obama , 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir.), ce rt denied , 562 U.S. 1082 (2010).
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23442]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Complaint of 
Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Against the 
Department of Commerce

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Office of Civil Rights, Commerce.
    Title: Complaint of Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual 
Orientation against the Department of Commerce.
    OMB Control Number: 0690-0024.
    Form Number(s): CD-545.
    Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently 
approved information collection).
    Burden Hours: 10.
    Number of Respondents: 20.
    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes.
    Needs and Use: Pursuant to Executive Order 11478 and Department of 
Commerce Administrative Order (DAO) 215-11, an employee or applicant 
for employment with the Department of Commerce who alleges that he or 
she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment based on sexual 
orientation by the Department of Commerce or one of its sub-agencies, 
must submit a signed statement that is sufficiently precise to identify 
the actions or practices that form the basis of the complaint. Through 
use of this standardized form, the Office of Civil Rights proposes to 
collect the information required by the Executive Order and DAO in a 
uniform manner that will increase the efficiency of complaint 
processing and trend analyses of complaint activity.
    The DOC received no comments in response to the 60-day notice 
published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2017 (82 FR 17968).
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at 
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce 
collections currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to OIRA <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fdae889f90948e8e949293bd92909fd398908dd39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15466077787c66667c7a7b557a78773b7078653b727a63">[email protected]</span></a> or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-23442 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-BP-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**Section 906 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerEach of Thomas J. Mazzarisi, Chief Executive Officer, and Stephen J. Schoepfer, ChiefFinancial Officer, of JAG Media Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to their knowledge:(1) The Company’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2008 (“Form10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operation of the Company.       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER   CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER         /s/ Thomas J. Mazzarisi   /s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer         Name: Thomas J. Mazzarisi   Name: Stephen J. Schoepfer         Date: March 24, 2008
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 18

- 00460

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1538845

Before Meier, Gabriel , and Kerr , JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### V ICTOR 

### G ARDNER



### , Appellant

V



### .

T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to di smiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a),

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: December 20, 2018
* 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

May 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51702

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS MONTES-GARCIA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-1473-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos MontesGarcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable Joseph A. Beyer 

County Attorney 

crane County 

Crane, Texas 

msr slrr 

ty pur~sss. 

passed an act allowa in advance and Crane 

resolutions and orpayers to take advantage 

coqtrsllar, a warrant 

ay the taxes assessed ageinst the 

exas; but DzDmmD fron the amount 

the roll two (25) per cent of the full 

amount of the taxes; This warrant will not be 

payable for so&e nine (9) or ten (10) months. 

RNo~ the question on which I would like your 

opinion la: y!ould the Gniverslty of Texas be en- 
Honorable Joseph A Beyer, Page 2 

titled to this discount in as'much as the money 

will not be available to the County for use for 

a period of nine or ten months unless they should 

discount the Sam, which would probable amount to 

another two or three per0ent.n 

Article 715Oc, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 

as mended 1931, prOYid8S for the pzlynz8nt of' county ad 

Yaloram taxes upon lands of the University of Texas. Section 6 0r said article de&ares that *It shall be the duty 

of the Comptroller 0r Public Accounts to fissue warrant8 

upon the General mud to pay taxes due eaoh county . . . .8 

House Bill Ro. 225 of the 4Cth Legislature (at 

page 4210 ot th8 House Journal) appropriates $j34,000.00 

ror the paynent of suchtaxes for each of th8 fiscal years 

ending August 31, 1940 and August 51, 1941. 

The Coslptroller*s Department advises us that the 

$34,000.00 appropriation was inadequate by a small alcount 

to pap in full the total amount of the county ad valorem 

taxes aSS8sS8d against all the University lands for the 

current year. yorthls reason the aisO0m privileges for 

the prompt paymnt of taxes provided by Article 70576, Vernon's AMOtat8d Civil Statut8S, a6 amended, w8re invoked 

as a method oi prorating the available $34,000.00 song 

the several counties to whoa taxes were due. The State has 

no zeans of paying county taxes in 8xcess of the sum appropriated theretor. 'Z'e b8li8Y8 therefore, that in the absence 

oi' a supplercental appropriation, the question of whether 

the Stat8 is entitled to discount taxes under Article 70576 

neat be 5xnmaterial. The claim of your county ror an aaaitional 2% or the 1939 taxes on University lands may be apPrORriately pl'8S8ht8d to the next session of the Legislature. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNXY GEmFiAL OF TEXAS
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 D0 16 9 . TI FFANY N. CAGE v . W I LLI E C. BUCHANAN, J R.

In M arch 2 0 1 7

, Ti ffan y N. Cag e fi l ed a co m p lai n t s eek i n g a d iv o rce fro m

W i ll i e C. Bu ch an an

, J r., o n t h e g ro u n d t h at t h e m arri ag e was irret ri ev ab l y b ro k en

. Cag e s u b s eq u en t l y m o ved fo r ju d g m en t o n t h e p l ead i ng s

, as sert i n g t h at s h e i s en t i t l ed

t o a d iv o rce as a m at ter o f l aw b eca u s e t h ere are n o o u t st an d in g i s s u es b et w een t h e

p art i es

. T h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed Cag e’ s m o t i o n b as ed i n p art on t h e p art i es ’ fai l u re to

s u b m i t a s et t l em en t ag reem en t th at res o l v es al l i s s u es

. T h e co urt al s o h i g hl i g h t ed t h at

t h e m at t er was n o t read y fo r a fi n al h e a r i n g owi n g t o an i n co m p l et e reco rd d es p i t e

m u lt i p l e req ues t s b y t h e co u rt t o b o t h s i d es t o s u b m it m i s s i n g d ocu m en t s

. Cag e fi l ed

a t i m el y ap p l i cat i o n s eek i n g d i scret io n ary rev iew o f t h e co u rt ’ s o rd er. W e, h o wev er,

l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g Cag e’ s m o t i o n fo r j u d gm en t o n t h e p l ead i ng s

i s an i n t erl ocu t o ry o rd er b ecau s e th e d iv o rce act i o n rem ai n s p e n d i ng b el ow. Cag e

t h erefo re was req u i r ed t o fo l l o w t h e i n t erl o cu t ory ap p eal p ro ced u res s et fo rt h in

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ). See Ba il ey v. Ba i l ey

, 2 6 6 G a

. 8 3 2

, 8 3 2-8 3 3 (4 7 1 SE2 d 2 1 3 )

(1 9 9 6); Sc r u g

g s v. G a

. Dep t

. o

f Hu ma n Res o ur ces

, 2 61 G a. 58 7

, 5 8 8 -5 8 9 (1 ) (4 0 8

SE2 d 1 0 3 ) (1 9 9 1 ). W h ere, as h ere, b o t h d i s cret io n ary an d i nt erl o cu t o ry ap p eal

p ro ced ures ap p l y

, an ap p l i can t m u st fo l l o w t he i n t erl o cu t o ry ap p eal p ro ced u res an d

o b t ai n a t i m el y cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew fro m t h e t ri al co u rt b e f o re fi l i n g an

ap p li cat io n . See Scr u g

g s

, 2 6 1 Ga. at 5 8 8 -5 8 9 (1 ).

Cag e’ s fai l u re t o co m

p l y wi t h t h e i n t erl o cu to ry ap p eal p ro ced ures d ep ri v es u s

o f ju ri s d ict i o n o v er t hi s ap p l icat i o n

, wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. November 28, 2018C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/28/2018
Order entered March 6, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01031-CV

DON WRIGHT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-12124

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to extend time to file brief. We GRANT the 

motion and ORDER the brief received by the Court March 5, 2019 filed as of the date of this 

order.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
#### Edward Dalton, Respondent, v Marian S. Nalven et al., Appellants, and Seisiun Path, Inc., Doing Business as O’Lonnies, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 500]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Marian S. Nalven, Mary Stern Co., Estate of Beatrice Miller, Estate of Annette M. Miller, and Beatrice Miller ffk/a Beatrice Eptstein, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated January 23, 1997, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 which was to preclude them from offering at trial evidence regarding the condition of the staircase on which the plaintiff was injured.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court acted providently in precluding the appellants from offering evidence at trial with respect to the condition of the staircase on which the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell. The record supports the conclusion that the appellants knowingly and willfully withheld information from the plaintiff concerning the contract of sale and transfer of ownership of the subject premises in which the allegedly defective staircase was located. As a result, the staircase at issue was destroyed by the new owner prior to its inspection by the plaintiff *(see,*CPLR 3126 [2]; *Summit Waterproofing & Restoration Corp. v Scarsdale Country Estates Owners,*228 AD2d 431, 432-433; *Ristenpadt v K & L Realty,*199 AD2d 312; *State Univ. Constr. Fund v Turner Constr. Co.,*181 AD2d 353). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08-18-00030-CV

§

WESTERN DAIRY TRANSPORT, 

L.L.C. AND JORGE HERNANDEZ,

 Relators.

§

§

§

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Francisco X. Dominguez, Judge of the 205th District Court of El Paso County, 

Texas, and concludes that Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore 

deny the petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and Larsen, J. (Senior Judge)

Rodriguez, J., dissenting

Larsen, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
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








SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of REMEDIATION SERVICES, INC. on Form 10-K for
the periods ending December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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) 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/  REED T.
      BULEYReed T. Buley
      CEODated:
      February 22, 2010/s/  REED T.
      BULEYReed T. Buley
      CEOCFODated:
      February 22, 2020







This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Christopher GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10051.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 22, 2008.*

Filed May 5, 2008.

Robert L. Ellman, Esq., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney Lloyd George Federal Bldg., Patrick M. Walsh, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Mario Valencia, Henderson, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ryan Christopher Garcia appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 151-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(c) and 846. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*886 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

We have conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We dismiss the appeal in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Findex.com, Inc. (the “company”) on Form
      10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Periodic Report”), I, Kirk R.
      Rowland, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted),
      that
      to my knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
                all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                the company at the end of the periods covered by the Periodic Report.





In
      Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this
      30 th day of
      September, 2005.








By
            /s/
                Kirk R. RowlandKirk
                R. Rowland, CPAChief
                Financial Officer