alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Erin A. HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Harold STERLING; Joseph Dufour; James Leblanc; Burl Cain; Darryl Vannoy; Billy Mock; Patrick Woods; Eric Hinyard; Trish Foster; Tim Delaney; Juan Conrad; Paul Smith; Unknown Cole; Jordan Bordelon; Leonard Wilson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-30418

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 10, 2011.

Erin Hunter, Angola, LA, pro se.

Patricia Hill Wilton, Louisiana Department of Justice, Scott G. Vincent, Office of the Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Erin A. Hunter, Louisiana prisoner # 111799, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1988 suit to seek redress for alleged infringements of his constitutional rights, and the district court dismissed the suit after granting the defendants’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion. In this appeal, Hunter argues that his allegations concerning the search of his locker box and the subsequent disciplinary conviction sufficed to raise a retaliation claim upon which relief could be granted. Additionally, he contends that the district court erred by dismissing his claims against certain defendants for want of personal involvement and failure to establish supervisory liability because he had not yet completed discovery.

We conduct a de novo review of the district court’s grant of the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Hunter’s suit. See *In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,*495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.2007). “To state a valid claim for retaliation under section 1983, a prisoner must allege (1) a specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4) causation.” *Jones v. Greninger,*188 F.3d 322, 324-25 (5th Cir.1999) (citing *McDonald v. Steward,*132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir.1998)).

Our review of the record and pertinent authority shows no error in connection with the district court’s dismissal of Hunter’s § 1983 suit. The facts asserted by Hunter do not sufficiently tie his act of writing a complaint letter concerning the *831behavior of two defendants to the disciplinary proceedings that he avers were instituted to retaliate for the letter. Accordingly, his complaint does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Because Hunter has not established a violation of his constitutional rights, he cannot likewise show that he will bring a claim upon which relief can be granted against one of the supervisory defendants. § 1983; *Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.,*599 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir.2010).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00149-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 352nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 352-290806-17

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

MATTHEW MURRAY AND COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC.,

Appellants and Cross-Appellees

V.

STEPHEN WATSON AND LYNNDORA RANSOM, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON 

BEHALF OF DESMOND JONES, DECEASED, Appellees and CrossAppellants
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 10, 2019, and May 24, 2019, we notified cross-appellants Stephen 

Watson and Lynndora Ransom, Individually, and on Behalf of Desmond Jones, 

Deceased, in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would 

dismiss the cross-appeal unless the $205 filing fee was paid See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(c), 44.3. Cross-appellants have not done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because cross-appellants have not complied with a procedural requirement and 

the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,1 we dismiss the cross-appeal of 

Stephen Watson and Lynndora Ransom, Individually, and on Behalf of Desmond 

Jones, Deceased. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Cross-appellants must pay all costs of the cross-appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: June 6, 2019

 

1See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases 

in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
# Percent Positive - User Note

# FY2024Q1
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A2017. BRIAN BRETZING v. THE STATE.

Brian Bretzing, a prison inmate, attempted to file a civil action against the

State, alleging false imprisonment, among other things. On May 9, 2016, the trial

court denied filing pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-2 (d), concluding that Bretzing’s

pleadings showed a complete absence of any justiciable law or fact. Bretzing then

filed this direct appeal on June 15, 2016. We, however, lack jurisdiction for two

reasons.

 First, Bretzing’s notice of appeal is untimely, as it was filed 37 days after the

May 9 order was entered. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a) (notice of appeal must be filed

within 30 days of entry of the challenged decision). Second, because Bretzing is

incarcerated, his appeal is controlled by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996,

OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA § 42-12-8, an appeal of a civil action filed by

a prisoner “shall be as provided in Code Section 5-6-35.” And under OCGA § 5-6-

35, the party wishing to appeal must file an application for discretionary appeal to the

appropriate appellate court. Because a prisoner has no right of direct appeal in civil

cases and this appeal is untimely, we lack jurisdiction to consider this direct appeal

from the superior court’s order. See Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489 (480 SE2d 24)

(1997). This appeal is therefore DISMISSED.

July 28, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/28/2016
**Exhibit 4.6**

 

**Statement of Resolution Regarding**

**Series of Preferred Stock**

**of**

**Chase Packaging Corporation**

 

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 2.13 of the Texas BusinessCorporation Act, and the Articles of Incorporation, as amended, of theundersigned Corporation, the Corporation submits the following with respect toits Statement of Resolution Establishing its Series A 10% ConvertiblePreferred Stock for the purpose of increasing the number of authorized sharesof the Series A 10% Convertible Preferred Stock:

 

1.             The name of theCorporation is “**Chase Packaging Corporation**” – **Filing Number 140688100**; and

 

2.             A resolution adoptingthe Statement of Resolution Regarding its Series A 10% ConvertiblePreferred Stock is attached as **Exhibit “A”**hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Such resolution was duly adopted by all necessary action on the part ofthe Corporation at a Special (Telephone) Meeting of the Board of Directors ofthe Corporation held on October 16, 2007.

 

Dated November 9, 2007.

 

 
|   | **Chase  Packaging Corporation** |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   | By:                              | /s/ Allen T.  McInnes |
|   |                             | Allen T.  McInnes |
|   |                             | Chairman and  President |

 

----

 

**EXHIBIT “A”**

 

**SERIES A10% CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK**

**OF**

**CHASEPACKAGING CORPORATION**

 

**RESOLVED**, thatpursuant to the provisions of Article 2.13 of the Texas BusinessCorporation Act and the Articles of Incorporation, as amended, of ChasePackaging Corporation (the “Corporation”), the Corporation has adopted thefollowing resolution by all necessary action on the part of the Corporation, ata Special (Telephone) Meeting of the Board of Directors held on October 16,2007, for the purpose of increasing the number of authorized shares of its Series A10% Convertible Preferred Stock as provided therein:

 

**RESOLVED,**thatpursuant to the authority vested in the Board of Directors of the Corporationby Article 4.2 of the Corporation’s Articles of Incorporation, as amended,the Corporation hereby approves a modification with respect to its Statement ofResolution Establishing its Series A 10% Convertible Preferred Stock,which Statement of Resolution was originally filed with the Secretary of Stateof Texas on August 28, 2007, by adopting a modification to said resolutionto increase the number of authorized shares of the Series A 10%Convertible Preferred Stock from 13,334 shares to 13,818 shares.  Except as modified herein, the Statement ofResolution Establishing the Series A 10% Convertible Preferred Stock asfiled with the Secretary of State on August 28, 2007, shall remain in fullforce and effect.

 

[END]

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 273 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 273

   To deem the Florida Panther to be an endangered species under the 
                    Endangered Species Act of 1973.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

    Mr. McCollum (for himself, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Shaw, Mr. 
 Bilirakis, Mr. Lewis of Florida, Mr. Goss, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. 
   Stearns) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To deem the Florida Panther to be an endangered species under the 
                    Endangered Species Act of 1973.

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

SECTION 1. FLORIDA PANTHER DECLARED ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the species commonly 
known as the ``Florida Panther'' is deemed to be an endangered species 
for purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531).

SEC. 2. LISTING OF FLORIDA PANTHER.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall include the species known as the ``Florida Panther'' in 
the list published under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)).

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Mark Lindberg, certify that:

1.   I am the chief financial officer of Photonics Corporation
2.   Attached  to this  certification  is Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year  ended
     December 31, 2005, a periodic  report (the "periodic  report") filed by the
     issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the  Securities  and  Exchange Act of 1934 (the  "Exchange  Act"),
     which contains financial statements.
3    I hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
     to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
          o    The periodic  report  containing the financial  statements  fully
               complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Exchange Act, and
          o    The  information in the periodic report fairly  presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the issuer for the periods presented.

March 29, 2006                                            /s/ Mark Lindberg
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Mark Lindberg
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


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

This  certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise  subject to the liability of that
section.  This  certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934 even if the document  with which it is submitted to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00831

- CR

WESLEY BERNARD GORDO N , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 183rd District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1363672).

TO THE 183RD DISTRIC T COURT OF HARRIS CO UNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 19th day of March 2015, the case upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on September 19, 2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgme nt contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the

Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered March 19, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown. Opin ion delivered by Justice Higley.WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court

in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

May 29, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
# Legend

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-04/CLG-PFAS2.03.pdf

# FY2021 and FY 2022 Data
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2700 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2700

To extend until January 1, 1998, certain previously existing temporary 
                           duty suspensions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend until January 1, 1998, certain previously existing temporary 
                           duty suspensions.

    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.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/
92'' in each of the following headings and inserting ``12/31/97'':
            (1) Heading 9902.30.19 (relating to 2-ethylanthraquinone).
            (2) Heading 9902.30.79 (relating to rhodamine 2C base).
            (3) Heading 9902.32.06 (relating to acid black 210 powder 
        and presscake).
            (4) Heading 9902.32.07 (relating to pigment red 178).
            (5) Heading 9902.32.08 (relating to pigment red 149 dry and 
        pigment red 149 presscake).
            (6) Heading 9902.32.30 (relating to isoindolemine red 
        pigment).

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendments 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 such amendment 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>
```
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 Novastar Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Scott F. Hartman, Chairman of the Board, Secretary and 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                                     
| |  | ------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Scott F. Hartman                
| |  | Scott F. Hartman                    
| |  | Chairman of the Board, Secretary and
| |  | Chief Executive Officer             
| |  | (Principal Executive Officer)       
| | 
| |  | August 6, 2004                      



This certification is made solely for
purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 11




                THE RANDERS GROUP INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



Primary Earnings Per Share

     Net income per share is computed on the basis of the weighted average
number of common and dilutive common equivalent shares outstanding during each
period.  The number of shares used in computing net income per share for each of
the periods included herein are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                 Weighted Average
     Three Months        Weighted Average       Number of Dilutive
        Ended            Number of Common        Common Equivalent
     March 31,          Shares Outstanding      Shares Outstanding        Total
   --------------       ------------------      ------------------        ------
<S>                    <C>                      <C>                     <C>
        1997                14,115,682                  ---               14,115,682
        1996                14,115,682                  ---               14,115,682
</TABLE>

Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share

     The Company's outstanding stock options are exercisable at prices which are
at or in excess of the market price.  Under the treasury stock method of
computing fully diluted earnings per share, the calculation of earnings per
share based upon the exercise of the stock options would be antidilutive (would
result in increased earnings per share).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         363,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,415,000 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,338,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         301,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10,875,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       169,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,432,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10,875,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,997,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,499,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               917,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             889,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                620,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (282,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            902,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                91,000
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   993,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.00
<FN>
<F1> Loans before allowance.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
2009-1750.

#### Torrance v. Rucker.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition. Upon review of relator’s proffered affidavit of indigency, submitted to waive the filing fee and security deposit,

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that within ten days of the date of this order relator shall either submit the $40 filing fee and $100 security deposit required by S.Ct.Prae.R. XV or show good cause why he should be permitted to proceed with this action, or any future actions, without payment of the filing fee and security deposit.