alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 24, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10398

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-60818-CV-AJ

JUDY COPELAND,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

CARL SHELL,

as friend,

Plaintiff,

versus

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF HOLLYWOOD,

TIM SCHWARTZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(July 24, 2009)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Judy Copeland is back before us again. This time, she appeals the district

court’s orders denying her Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the denial of

her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to recover terminated federal housing benefits and

denying her motion for rehearing.

In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment against

Copeland on res judicata grounds in the case underlying this appeal, we noted that

“[t]he rationale of the doctrine of res judicata is that there must be an end to

litigation.” Copeland v. Hous. Auth. of Hollywood, No. 08-10744, slip. op. 1, at 6

(11th Cir. Nov. 25, 2008) (quotation omitted). That rationale has not changed.

We review a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion only for an abuse

of discretion. Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1316 (11th Cir.

2000). We also review the denial of a motion for rehearing for an abuse of

discretion. Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502, 507 (11th Cir. 1996).

Copeland contends that we erred in holding that her claims were barred by

res judicata because her earlier lawsuits in state courts were not decided on the

merits. She argues that the decisions were not on the merits because she lacked

standing to bring her claims in state court. Copeland is wrong. There is nothing in

2
the record to indicate that the state court dismissed either lawsuit for lack of

standing or lack of jurisdiction or that there was any such basis for doing so.

Instead, the record shows exactly the opposite. As we recognized in Copeland’s

earlier appeal, both of the state-court judgments against her were on the merits.

See Copeland, No. 08-10744, slip. op. at 6. In Copeland’s first state court lawsuit,

the court granted summary judgment for the defendants. In the second one, the

court dismissed Copeland’s complaint with prejudice, which operated as an

adjudication on the merits under Florida law. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b) (“Unless

the court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this

subdivision . . . , other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper

venue or for lack of an indispensable part, operates as an adjudication on the

merits.”).

Copeland’s earlier state court actions ended in decisions on the merits and

res judicata was properly applied to her claims. The district court properly denied

her motions here. We agree with the district court that Copeland’s opportunity to

litigate this matter is “at an end.”

AFFIRMED.

3
Exhibit 32.1

        Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and 18
           U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
                         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
                         -------------------------------

I, Michael C. Culver, as Chief Executive Officer of First Aviation Services Inc.
(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 to my
knowledge:

(1)      the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
         period ended April 30, 2005 (the "Report"), filed with the U.S.
         Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.


Dated: June 13, 2005


                                       By: /s/ Michael C. Culver
                                           ---------------------
                                           Michael C. Culver
                                           Chief Executive Officer


                                       22
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2465 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2465

To extend until January 1, 1996, the previously existing temporary duty 
   suspension on certain knitting machines and parts, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 1993

  Mr. Manton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend until January 1, 1996, the previously existing temporary duty 
   suspension on certain knitting machines and parts, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DUTY SUSPENSIONS.

    (a) In General.--Each of the following headings of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/
92'' and inserting ``12/31/95'':
            (1) Heading 9902.84.48 (relating to circular knitting 
        machines and parts).
            (2) Heading 9902.84.49 (relating to power driven flat 
        knitting machines and parts).
    (b) Hosiery Knitting Machines and Needles.--
            (1) Heading 9902.84.47 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
        the United States (relating to hosiery knitting machines and 
        parts) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/
                94''; and
                    (B) by striking ``or 8448.59.10'' and inserting 
                ``8448.51.50, or 8448.59.10''.
            (2) Heading 9902.84.51 of such Schedule (relating to 
        needles for knitting machines) is amended by striking ``12/31/
        92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 90th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which any 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1992; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or 
withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
withdrawal had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 20, 2015

No. 04-15-00416-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A.H., AND A.H.,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00033

Honorable Brenda Chapman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal of the June 23, 2015 order terminating Appellant mother’s 

parental rights, Appellant mother’s brief was due to be filed with this court on August 17, 2015. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). On the brief’s due date, Appellant mother filed a motion for a 

twenty-day extension of time to file her brief. 

Appellant mother’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant mother’s brief must be filed with 

this court by September 8, 2015. See id. Further motions for extension of time to file Appellant 

mother’s brief will be disfavored. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2, (directing courts of appeals to 

dispose of SAPCR suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of August, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 26 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Lay laM. Lin eg ar ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt
v. Mark Lo ba no ff, M.D., an d No rth Subu rb an Ey e Sp eci al is ts , LLP ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof M in ne so ta- Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Feb ru ary 20 , 20 13 Fi le d: Marc h 7 , 20 13 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __PER CURI AM.

Lay la Lin eg ar ap pe al s th e di stric t co ur t’s or de r di sm is si ng he r di ve rs it y act io n 1 as se rti ng st at e m ed ic al to rt cl ai m s, aft er Lin eg ar ackno wled ge d th at sh e di d no t ha ve an ex pe rt wit ne ss to te st ify at tri al
. A f t e r care fu l rev ie w, s ee Sch affa rt v. ONEOK, In c., 68 6 F.3 d 46 1, 47 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (g ran t of jud gm en t a s mat t er of la w is rev ie wed de no vo ), we co nc lu de th at th e di sm is sa l was pr op er fo r th e reas on s st at ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, se e Fab io v. Bel lo m o , 5 04 N.W .2d 75 8, 76 2 (Mi nn . 19 93 ) (ex pe rt- te st im on y requi rem en t fo r m ed ic al -m al pr act ic e cl ai m ); Rei nh ard t v. Co lt on , 33 7 N.W .2d 88 , 96 (Mi nn . 19 83 ) (ex pe rt- te st im on y requi rem en t fo r ne gl ig en tno nd is cl os ur e cl ai m ). The ju dg m en t i s af firm ed . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

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

The Hon or ab le Pau l A. Mag nu so n, Uni te d St at es D istric t Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a. -2
-
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2683 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2683

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To extend the operation of the migrant student record transfer system.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2683

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To extend the operation of the migrant student record transfer system.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RECORD TRANSFER SYSTEM.

    (a) Program Extension.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
Federal law, the Secretary of Education shall extend the contract for 
the operation of the migrant student record transfer system under 
section 1203(a)(2)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to operate such system until such time as the Secretary of 
Education determines is necessary, but shall not extend such contract 
beyond June 30, 1995, without conducting a competition.
    (b) Program Modification.--Major modification of such system may be 
made only after consultation with the Committee on Education and Labor 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources of the Senate.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 26, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,690
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                       514
<INVENTORY>                                     34,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,963
<PP&E>                                          87,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,451
<BONDS>                                        154,954
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (66,112)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,974
<SALES>                                        189,699
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,699
<CGS>                                          125,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    37
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,455
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,455
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# FY17_Q4

# Percent Positives - User Notes
| Name                              |   | Jurisdiction             |
|-----------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                              |   |                     |
| NHT Global, Inc.                  |   | United States (Delaware) |
| NHTC International, LLC           |   | United States (Delaware) |
| NHT Global (Canada) Company       |   | Canada                   |
| NHTC Holding Company              |   | Cayman Islands           |
| NHT Global Taiwan Company         |   | Cayman Islands           |
| NHTC Trading Company              |   | Cayman Islands           |
| NHT Global CIS Company            |   | Cayman Islands           |
| NHT Global (China) Corporation    |   | China                    |
| NHT Global Hong Kong Limited      |   | Hong Kong                |
| Natural Health Trends Japan, Inc. |   | Japan                    |
| NHTK Ltd.                         |   | South Korea              |
| NHT Slovenia, Ltd.                |   | Slovenia                 |
| NHT Global Europe S.R.L.          |   | Italy                    |
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD

77K Street, NE Washington, DC 20002

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 21, 2014

THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN PARTICIPATION HITS A RECORD HIGH

Washington, D.C. – The percentage of participants who are 

contributing to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) hit a record high in 

July 2014, with 87.5 percent of TSP participants who are covered by 

the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) actively contributing

to the TSP. Contributions to the TSP are matched by employer 

contributions, up to 5 percent. The TSP is one leg of the FERS 

benefit – the others being Social Security and a defined benefit 

annuity. 

In January of 2003, 87.4 percent of FERS participants were 

contributing to the TSP. Over the next few years, that number 

drifted downward to a level of 81.5 percent in 2009, in the wake of 

the market crisis and recession.

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB), which runs 

the TSP, was monitoring this trend. In July of 2007, the FRTIB

proposed legislation that would automatically enroll new employees 

into the TSP at a contribution rate of 3 percent, if the employees

did not make an alternate choice. That legislation was enacted in

2009 and implemented in 2010. Since that time, the participation rate 

has climbed steadily.

“We are pleased that automatic enrollment has had its intended 

effect. More FERS participants than ever before are contributing to 

the TSP. Contributing to the TSP will help our participants retire 

with dignity,” said Greg Long, Executive Director of the FRTIB. 

The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal employees; it is similar to the 

401(k) plans offered by many private employers. As of July 2014, TSP assets 

totaled approximately $414.6 billion, and retirement savings accounts were being 

maintained for more than 4.6 million TSP participants. Participants include Federal 

civilian employees in all branches of Government, employees of the U.S. Postal 

Service, and members of the uniformed services. Additional information can be found 

at www.tsp.gov.

MEDIA CONTACT:

Kim Weaver 

202-942-1641
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

EMRU KEBEDE, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 21 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Memorandum and 

Order of the Superior Court at No. 1228 

MDA 2014 exited December 4, 2014, 

affirming the Order of the Lancaster 

County Court of Common Pleas at No. 

CP-36-CR-0003556-2007 exited June 

27, 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 17th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED on the issue of whether Petitioner’s sentence violates the prohibition 

against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders announced by the Supreme 

Court of the United States in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). 

As a result of the recent holding by that Court that Miller must be applied retroactively 

by the States, see Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), the 

Superior Court’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further 

proceedings consistent with Montgomery. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter 

DECIDED: February 17, 2016
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

I,
Paul Marciano, Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of the Board of Guess?, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby 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:



|Date: April 1, 2008 |  | By: | /s/PAUL MARCIANOPaul Marciano Chief Executive Officer and
Vice Chairman of the Board
|------------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Guess?, Inc. and will be retained by Guess?, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 11

                BOSTON BIOMEDICA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
                        WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Quarter Ended September 30,   Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                           ---------------------------   -------------------------------
                                                                1997          1996            1997             1996
                                                           -------------  ------------   --------------   --------------
<S>                                                        <C>            <C>            <C>              <C>
Average common stock outstanding                              4,437,556     2,690,064       4,407,158        2,628,841

Net effect of dilutive common stock
   equivalents-based on treasury stock
   method using average market price                            365,322       623,044         397,784          623,044
                                                           -------------  ------------   --------------   --------------
                                                              4,802,878     3,313,108       4,804,942        3,251,885
                                                           =============  ============   ==============   ==============

Net income                                                     $246,147      $162,652        $569,596         $245,521

Add: net reduction of interest on debt,
   less 40% taxes                                                  -           10,450            -              10,450

Adjusted net income (loss) for earnings per
   share calculation                                           $246,147      $173,102        $569,596         $255,971
                                                           =============  ============   ==============   ==============
Net income per share                                               0.05          0.05            0.12             0.08
                                                           =============  ============   ==============   ==============

</TABLE>
                                   16
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Chudleigh Ashmeade, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The People appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), rendered on January 9, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 30.30.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Dakota D. Ramseur, J.), dated January 9, 2015, reversed, on the law, motion denied, information reinstated and matter remitted to Criminal Court for further proceedings.</p><p>Criminal Court erred in dismissing the accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds. The counts of the accusatory instrument pertaining to the charges of promoting prison contraband in the second degree (<i>see</i> Penal Law 205.20[2]) were timely converted to an information upon the filing of the supporting deposition of Correction Officer Cordero and a copy of the New York City Department of Correction Inmate Rule Book, inasmuch as these documents, when read in conjunction with the complaint, contained "nonhearsay allegations which, if true, establish every element of the offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof" (<i>People v Kalin</i>, 12 NY3d 225, 228-229 [2009]; <i>see</i> CPL 100.40(1)(c)). In view of the allegation that defendant received a copy of the inmate rule book upon admittance to the correctional facility (<i>see</i> Correction Law ยง 138[2]), the absence of a certified copy of the inmate rule book did not render the information jurisdictionally defective (<a href="../2010/2010_03536.htm" target="_blank"><i>see generally People v Harris, </i>72 AD3d 1492</a> [2010], <i>lv denied </i>15 NY3d 774 [2010]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: October 04, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>