alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L., Plaintiff-Appellee, and Auriga Polymers Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. M & G POLYMERS USA LLC and M & G USA Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 2014-1432.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 13, 2014.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 2014.

Megan D. Dortenzo, Thompson Hine LLP, of Cleveland, OH, argued for defendants-appellants. With her on the brief was Arthur P. Licygiewicz. Of counsel on the brief were William P. Atkins and Christopher K. Dorsey, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, of McLean, VA.

William J. Marsden, Jr., Fish & Richardson P.C., of Wilmington, DE, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief for Invista North America S.a.r.l. were Douglas E. McCann, Martina Tyreus Hufnal, Robert M. Oakes, and Michelle Nerozzi-Ankenbrand. On the brief for Auriga Polymers Inc. were John W. Shaw and Jeffrey T. Castellano, Shaw Keller LLP, of Wilmington, DE.

PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
----

----

----

----

----

----

|                             |   |   |                                                                                                            |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| By:/s/ James R. Wolford          |   |   | By:/s/ James R. Ingebritsen            (SEAL)  |   |
| Name:  James R. Wolford     |   |   | Name:  James R. Ingebritsen                                                                           |   |
| Title:  Corporate Secretary |   |   | Title:  Chief Executive Officer                                                                            |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          27,012                  32,280
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,531                   1,991
<ALLOWANCES>                                       848                     662
<INVENTORY>                                        801                     806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,783                  34,826
<PP&E>                                           3,089                   2,911
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,646                   1,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,332                  36,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,157                   7,084
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        65,207                  65,060
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,032)                (35,632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,332                  36,512
<SALES>                                          5,309                   3,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,309                   3,700
<CGS>                                            3,172                   2,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,172                   2,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,542                  10,022
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2                       2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,583)                 (7,876)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,583)                 (7,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,583)                 (7,876)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.54)                  (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.54)                  (0.58)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                          23,735
<SECURITIES>                                     9,531
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,758
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,029
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,710
<PP&E>                                          13,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,397
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,167
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,139
<SALES>                                          8,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,071
<CGS>                                            3,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    175
<INCOME-TAX>                                        70
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (230)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregg BRAXTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7922.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2014.

Decided: April 28, 2014.

Gregg Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United *268States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gregg Braxton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Braxton has not made the requisite showing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 13.1
  Officer Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A., a sociedad anónima organized under the laws of Argentina (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:  The Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: July 20, 2016  By: /s/ Ricardo TorresName: Ricardo TorresTitle: Chief Executive Officer
   Date: July 20, 2016 By: /s/ Leandro Carlos MonteroName: Leandro Carlos MonteroTitle: Chief Financial Officer
# EXTRACTED 2024-03-28

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/InspectionTasksGCP_DataDocumentation.pdf
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, Amit
Tandon, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Emissary
Capital Group, Inc. f/k/a Cavalier Holdings, Inc.  (the
“Company”), certify, that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2008  of the Company (the “Report”):
 
 1.      The
report 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.
 
 Date:
September 22,  2009
 
 /s/Amit
Tandon
 Amit
Tandon
 Chairman
of the Board and
 Chief
Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 3, 2018

No. 04-18-00903-CR

Monisha Monique WASHINGTON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR11334W

Honorable Frank J. Castro, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 

certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part of the record 

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be 

dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant 

causes an amended trial court certification to be filed by January 2, 2019, showing appellant has 

the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no 

pet.). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification 

issue.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of December, 2018.
___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Sheree D. Greenberg, Appellant, v Susan T. Macagnone et al., Respondents.

[7 NYS3d 185]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), dated November 21, 2013, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The defendants met their prima facie burden of showing that *938the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 351-352 [2002]; *Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d 786, 787 [2011]; *Fraser-Baptiste v New York City Tr. Auth.,*81 AD3d 878 [2011]). In support of their motion, the defendants submitted, inter alia, the affirmed medical report of Dr. Isaac Cohen, who examined the plaintiff and reviewed the plaintiffs medical records, including magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) films of the plaintiffs lumbar spine area. Dr. Cohen opined that the MRI films demonstrated a preexisting degenerative disc disease that was not caused by the subject accident.

In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff submitted, inter alia, an affirmation from Dr. Vladimir Salomon, a physician who had treated the plaintiff for her back condition since shortly after the subject accident. Based on his physical examination of the plaintiff, his review of the plaintiffs medical records, including an MRI report, the plaintiffs medical history, and his own treatment of the plaintiff, Dr. Salomon opined “with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the plaintiffs motor vehicle accident on March 10, 2011 was and is the competent producing cause of [the plaintiffs] right lateral recess disc herniation at L5-S1 with compression of the right SI nerve root,” among other trauma related injuries. Dr. Salomon concluded that these injuries to the plaintiffs lumbar spine were causing the plaintiffs back pain, as well as the diminishment of her lumbar range of motion, and “should be considered permanent.” This was sufficient to rebut the defendants’ prima facie showing and, thus, raise a triable issue of fact *(see Jilani v Palmer,*83 AD3d at 787; *Fraser-Baptiste v New York City Tr. Auth.,*81 AD3d at 879).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Skelos, J.R, Sgroi, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
#### Jackie Lee REDD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Prisons, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7626.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 16, 2007.

Decided: March 23, 2007.

Jackie Lee Redd, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jackie Lee Redd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Redd has not made the requisite showing. 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.*
2009-1619.

#### State v. Ross.

Summit App. No. 21906, 2009-Ohio-3561. On appellant’s motion for leave to file delayed appeal and appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Motion for leave to file delayed appeal granted. Motion to dismiss denied.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.

O’Connor, J., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 161 (Monday, August 20, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-55525]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

12 CFR Part 226


Open-end Model Forms and Clauses

CFR Correction

    In Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 220 to 299, 
revised as of January 1, 2001, in Part 226, Appendix G is corrected by 
adding Table G-10(C) as follows:

PART 226--TRUTH IN LENDING (REGULATION Z)

* * * * *

Appendix G to Part 226--Open-End Model Forms and Clauses

* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20AU01.011

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01-55525 Filed 8-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

  

**Officer Certifications Pursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A., a sociedad anónima organized under the laws of Argentina (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 Date: April 27, 2016.

 

                        /s/ Ricardo Torres

                                                                                           Name: Ricardo Torres

Title: Chief Executive Officer

 

 Date: April 27, 2016.

 

/s/ Leandro Carlos Montero

Name: Leandro Carlos Montero

 Title: Chief Financial Officer
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2010-0539.

#### State ex rel. Kinder v. Newburgh Hts. Village Council.

Cuyahoga App. No. 94416. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

It is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
Exhibit 13.1
   Officer Certifications Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Empresa Distribuidora y Comercializadora Norte S.A., a sociedad anónima organized under the laws of Argentina (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:  The Amendment No. 2 to the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: July 21, 2016  /s/ Ricardo TorresName: Ricardo TorresTitle: Chief Executive Officer
   Date: July 21, 2016 /s/ Leandro Carlos MonteroName: Leandro Carlos MonteroTitle: Chief Financial Officer
U.S. flag
          Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
            Así es como usted puede verificarlo
          Así es como usted puede verificarloDot gov**El .gov significa que es oficial.**
                
                Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
          Https**Este sitio es seguro.**
                
                El **https://** medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.

    
          FTC: Translation Menu
  

        
EnglishFTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas **
Menú


    close


                  FTC: Main navigation (ES)
  

        
  
  Consejos para consumidores
      
    Guía para negocios
      
    Reembolsos
      
    Noticias
      
    Acerca de la FTC
      
    Buscar
        
        
        FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas

          
  
          Consejos para consumidores
      
    
              Guía para negocios
      
    
              Reembolsos
      
    
              Noticias
      
    
              Acerca de la FTC
      
    
              Buscar Conéctese

    
  
          Actualizaciones por email
    Consejos para consumidores

Reciba consejos sobre cómo ser un consumidor informado, brindados por la agencia nacional de protección del consumidor.

Ingrese su email para Consejos para consumidores

Noticias de la FTC

Manténgase al tanto de las noticias y consejos de protección del consumidor. Suscríbase para recibir un email gratuito cada vez que agregamos noticias.

Ingrese su email para Noticias de la FTC La FTC en redes sociales

@laFTC

Siga a la FTC en Twitter en @laFTC(link is external).

FTC YouTube

Vea videos de la FTC en español(link is external).

Canal RSS

Comunicados de prensa
  
    
    
    

  Return to top **
Menú
FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        


      Reporte las estafas
                              Reciba alertas
  
  
      FTC: Footer (es)
  

        


      Política de privacidad y noticias