alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren THOMAS, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6333.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 26, 2002.

Decided May 9, 2002.

Warren Thomas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Warren Thomas, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion nominally filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60, which the district court construed as filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) . We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Thomas,*Nos. CR-95-370; CA-02-152 (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2002) . We also note that the Thomas’ § 2255 motion is successive and, thus, is unaffected by this Court’s recent decision in *Hill v. Braxton,*277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002).* We dispense with oral argument *126because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 A panel of this court recently heard argument in *United States v. Emmanuel,*No. 00-7578, on the issue of whether a district court must notify a pro se litigant that it intends to construe a filing that is not so labeled as a § 2255 motion and afford the movant the opportunity to withdraw the motion in order to avoid the restrictions on second or successive motions *126under § 2255. This case will not be controlled by the decision in *Emmanuel,*however, because Thomas has previously filed a first § 2255 motion and, therefore was not prejudiced by the district court’s failure to provide him notice and an opportunity to withdraw prior to construing his motion as one filed under § 2255. Thomas’ recourse is a motion in this court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1999 & Supp.2001), for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
#### Edward I. Ackerbaum, Respondent, v. Gracelyne Fashions, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Joroco Silk Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No opinion. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ., concur.
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT, SPLITTAIL and LONGFIN REPORT

April 2014

Note: Shaded area not verified with CDFW data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS In Acre Feet

Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP Larval 

Yor N CVP Larval Yor N Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N

1-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 1,099 2,746 3,845 2,179 5,447 7,626 0.0 0.0

2-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 928 4,205 5,133 1,841 8,341 10,182 0.0 0.0

3-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 1,361 4,241 5,602 2,699 8,412 11,111 0.0 0.0

4-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 1,834 4,218 6,052 3,638 8,367 12,005 0.0 0.0

5-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 1,476 4,199 5,675 2,928 8,328 11,256 0.0 0.0

6-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 1,605 4,216 5,821 3,183 8,362 11,545 0.0 0.0

7-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 n 1,472 4,193 5,665 2,919 8,317 11,236 0.0 0.0

8-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 4,225 4,225 0 8,381 8,381 0.0 0.0

9-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 45 4,206 4,252 90 8,343 8,433 0.0 0.0

10-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 657 4,180 4,838 1,304 8,292 9,596 0.0 0.0

11-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 n 375 4,205 4,580 744 8,341 9,085 0.0 0.0

12-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 375 4,217 4,592 744 8,365 9,109 0.0 0.0

13-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 375 3,586 3,961 744 7,112 7,856 0.0 0.0

14-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 375 3,300 3,675 744 6,546 7,290 0.0 0.0

15-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 380 1,479 1,859 753 2,934 3,687 0.0 0.0

16-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 375 2,489 2,864 744 4,937 5,681 0.0 0.0

17-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 375 987 1,362 744 1,958 2,702 0.0 0.0

18-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 375 1,703 2,078 744 3,377 4,121 0.0 0.0

19-Apr-14 0 0 y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 375 1,996 2,372 744 3,960 4,704 0.0 0.0

20-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 375 1,993 2,369 744 3,954 4,698 0.0 0.0

21-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y 467 1,994 2,461 926 3,956 4,882 0.0 0.0

22-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 650 2,364 3,014 1,290 4,689 5,979 0.0 0.0

23-Apr-14 4 0 n 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 650 2,500 3,150 1,290 4,958 6,248 3.1 0.0

24-Apr-14 0 4 y 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 125 2,496 2,621 248 4,951 5,199 0.0 0.8

25-Apr-14 0 0 y 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 125 2,498 2,623 248 4,955 5,203 0.0 0.0

26-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 124 2,502 2,626 245 4,963 5,208 0.0 0.0

27-Apr-14 12 0 n 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 467 2,500 2,966 926 4,958 5,884 13.0 0.0

28-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 220 2,499 2,719 437 4,957 5,394 0.0 0.0

29-Apr-14 0 0 n 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 377 2,496 2,873 747 4,951 5,698 0.0 0.0

30-Apr-14 4 0 n 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 375 2,496 2,871 744 4,951 5,695 5.4 0.0

Total 20 4 24 XXXX 0 4 4 XXXX 0 8 17,812 90,932 108,744 35,331 180,363 215,694 XXXX XXXX

Official data is posted on CDFW's webpage.

SWP Fish Facility larval sampling not reported to CVO and CVP Tracy Fish Facility larval sampling started 3-13-2014.

DATE

Banks Tracy Combined Banks

Delta Smelt 

Daily Density

Tracy Combined SWP CVP
#### Fourth National Realty Company, Respondent, v. Josiah H. Goodale and Others, Appellants.

Motion granted, without costs, and case set down for Thursday, June 26, 1913. Present — Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
g:\blm\buttermp\ams\FinalFigures\fig2-27_PAOwnership1117.mxd 

Broadwater County 

£¤12 Townsend 

Boulder 

Anaconda 

§ ̈¦90 

Deerlodge County 

287 

Butte 

£¤

Silverbow County Gallatin County

§ ̈¦15 

Whitehall 

Three Forks 

Belgrade 

Bozeman 

Madison County 

I BLM NPS US Gov't USFW Project Area and Ownership

0 Miles 10 BOR Private US Gov't/FS Unknown Butte Field Office - EIS

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Map RMP Planning Area, Montana Local Gov't State USFS Land Management (BLM) for use of Location FIGURE 2-27b data for purposes not intended by BLM.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2336** 

JOHN J. BOWMAN, JR. , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. ANYA KOVSLEK; JOEL ZIEGLER; G. ESPARZA; ROBERT TRYBUS; JEFFREY DURANKO; ROBERT ROFF; MATTHEW GEYER; ERIC ELZA; DANE ZIMMERMAN; BRIAN CALLIHAN; VERONICA FERNANDEZ; KENNY ADAMS; D. SHAW , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg
. Irene M. Keeley , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00106

- I MK

- JSK )

Submitted : February 10, 2011 Decided: February 16, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. John J. Bowman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal , Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John J. Bowman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Appellees an extension of time in which to respond to Bowman’s complaint . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial I ndus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Bowman seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Charles H. Allshouse, Respondent, v. Devore Palmer, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present —Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott. Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES WILL BONHAM,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NA,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 22

- 16542

D.C. No. 2:21

- cv

- 00406

- MTL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023 * *

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges

.

James Will Bonham appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his post

- judgment motion for reconsideration in his action alleging federal claims

in connection with a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review for an ab use of discretion. Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc. , 620 F.3d

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 12 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 16542

1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2010)

. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bonham’s motion

for reconsideration because Bonham failed to demonstrate any basis for relief

. Se e

Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63

(9th Cir. 1993) ( setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) and 60(b)).

We do not consider Bonham’s contentions regarding the underlying

judgment because Bonham failed to file a timely notice of appeal of that judgment.

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of

judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi) (post

- judgment tolling motions

must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment)

.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5313 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5313

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow for certain 
  residential rental property to be depreciated over a 30-year period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2019

  Mr. Morelle (for himself and Mr. Wenstrup) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow for certain 
  residential rental property to be depreciated over a 30-year period.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Multifamily Depreciation Parity Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. DEPRECIATION OF CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY OVER 30-
              YEAR PERIOD.

    Section 13204(b) of Public Law 115-97 is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Certain residential rental property.--In the case of 
        any residential rental property--
                    ``(A) which was placed in service before January 1, 
                2018,
                    ``(B) which is held by an electing real property 
                trade or business (as defined in section 163(j)(7)(B) 
                of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), and
                    ``(C) for which subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), 
                (E), or (G) of section 168(g)(1) of the Internal 
                Revenue Code of 1986 did not apply prior to such date,
        the amendments made by subsection (a)(3)(C) shall apply to 
        taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.''.
                                 <all>
```
### §3623. Transfer of a prisoner to State authority

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall order that a prisoner who has been charged in an indictment or information with, or convicted of, a State felony, be transferred to an official detention facility within such State prior to his release from a Federal prison facility if—

(1) the transfer has been requested by the Governor or other executive authority of the State;

(2) the State has presented to the Director a certified copy of the indictment, information, or judgment of conviction; and

(3) the Director finds that the transfer would be in the public interest.

If more than one request is presented with respect to a prisoner, the Director shall determine which request should receive preference. The expenses of such transfer shall be borne by the State requesting the transfer.

(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §212(a)(2), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2008.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

For a prior section 3623, applicable to offenses committed prior to Nov. 1, 1987, see note set out preceding section 3601 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Nov. 1, 1987, and applicable only to offenses committed after the taking effect of this section, see section 235(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–473, set out as a note under section 3551 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4734 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 532
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4734

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2020

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 171 South Maple Street in Dana, Indiana, as the ``Ernest `Ernie' T. 
                          Pyle Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. ERNEST ``ERNIE'' T. PYLE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 171 South Maple Street in Dana, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ernest `Ernie' T. Pyle Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ernest 
`Ernie' T. Pyle Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 532

116th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4734

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 171 South Maple Street in Dana, Indiana, as the ``Ernest `Ernie' T. 
                          Pyle Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 15, 2020

            Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
```
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



CERTIFICATION



I, Steven B. Lapin, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1, of The Aristotle Corporation;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and



c.

disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a.

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b.

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date:  May 1, 2006



/s/ Steven B. Lapin



Steven B. Lapin

President and Chief Operating Officer
§ 19.580 Time for making entries in records. ( a ) *Daily record entries.* A proprietor must make entries required by this part in records on a daily basis for each transaction or operation and not later than the close of the next business day after the transaction or operation occurred. However, if a proprietor prepares supplemental or auxiliary records when an operation or transaction occurs and those records contain all of the required information, the proprietor may make entries into the daily records not later than the close of business on the third business day following the day on which the transaction or operation occurred.
( b ) *Tax records.* A proprietor must enter the tax determination and the taxable removal of distilled spirits in the proprietor's records on the day on which tax determination and taxable removal occurs.
(26 U.S.C. 5207)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY

 495.43

 494.56

 493.18

 492.20

 490.94

 489.72

 488.35

 486.31

 484.78

 483.57

 482.27

 481.17

 480.34

 478.99

 477.73

 476.22

 474.47

 473.09

 471.64

 470.62

 469.86

 468.41

 466.89

 465.55

 464.16

 462.75

 461.88

 461.21

 459.60

 457.87

 1,455,563

 1,445,712

 1,430,132

 1,419,103

 1,404,966

 1,391,322

 1,376,055

 1,353,426

 1,336,537

 1,323,231

 1,308,985

 1,296,971

 1,287,930

 1,273,270

 1,259,638

 1,243,365

 1,224,588

 1,209,863

 1,194,453

 1,183,650

 1,175,622

 1,160,353

 1,144,417

 1,130,427

 1,115,973

 1,101,374

 1,092,398

 1,085,501

 1,068,987

 1,051,334

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 6,558

 9,326

 9,367

 6,984

 9,806

 7,135

 9,557

 10,977

 10,758

 9,556

 10,754

 9,440

 9,461

 9,506

 9,983

 10,017

 5,125

 0

 5,249

 5,286

 3,081

 4,242

 4,740

 3,837

 4,907

 7,506

 5,036

 4,934

 3,748

 9,077

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SAN LUIS RESERVOIR FEDERAL July 31, 2000

DAILY OPERATIONS

JUNE 2000 RUN DATE:

FEDERAL

CHANGE CHANGE

PACHECO

PUMP

TOTALS -411,150 215,953 14,302 -230,207

FEDERAL

PUMP ADJ

FEDERAL

GEN

-6,921

-9,851

-15,580

-11,029

-14,137

-13,644

-15,267

-22,629

-16,889

-13,306

-14,246

-12,014

-9,041

-14,660

-13,632

-16,273

-18,777

-14,725

-15,410

-10,803

-8,028

-15,269

-15,936

-13,990

-14,454

-14,599

-8,976

-6,897

-16,514

-17,653

 439

 449

 450

 414

 453

 469

 472

 419

 396

 465

 425

 442

 431

 431

 437

 430

 404

 375

 404

 402

 505

 602

 489

 592

 537

 616

 647

 658

 627

 422

-7,121

-9,813

-9,731

-7,471

-10,084

-7,737

-9,793

-11,330

-11,075

-10,260

-11,208

-9,972

-10,175

-9,846

-10,479

-10,390

-5,617

-418

-5,544

-5,717

-3,503

-4,863

-5,268

-4,537

-5,350

-7,981

-5,642

-5,574

-4,259

-9,449

ELEV STORAGE

 0

 693,321

 683,508

 673,777

 666,306

 656,222

 648,485

 638,692

 627,362

 616,287

 606,027

 594,819

 584,847

 574,672

 564,826

 554,347

 543,957

 538,340

 537,922

 532,378

 526,661

 523,158

 518,295

 513,027

 508,490

 503,140

 495,159

 489,517

 483,943

 479,684

 470,235

FEDERAL

STORAGE

COMMENTS : 

VALUES IN ACRE-FEET

 700,442

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0