alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 12615 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s
. 6:15

- cv
- 00643

- PGB ; 6:14

- bkc

- 03297

- ABB
In r e: JAMES E. BAUMANN, DEB ORA K. BAUMANN,
Debtors.

____________________________________________ ______________________ JAMES E. BAUMANN,
Plaintiff

- Appellant, DEBORA K. BAUMANN, Plaintiff,

versus
PN C BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
De fendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (S eptember 1, 2017) Case: 16-12615 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 1 of 22 Before HULL , WILSON, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James Baumann (“Baumann”) , proceeding pro se , challenges the district
court’s dismissal of his appeal from a bankruptcy court order for lack of standing. PNC, NA (“PNC”) is the purported holder of a note on a residence owned by Baumann and his wife, Deborah. When PNC a ttempted to foreclose on the property , Bauma nn

— but not his wife

— f iled for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. PNC moved to have the automatic stay lifted with regard to Baumann ’s wife , as co
debtor on the ir residence , in order to pursue an in personam suit against her. Th e bankruptcy court granted the motion

. Baumann challenged that decision in the
district court and his appeal was dismissed for lack of standing because he was not

a “ person aggrieved” by the bankruptcy court’s order. This appeal followed. After the close of briefing in this appeal, Baumann voluntarily dismissed his Chapter 13 case in the bankruptcy court. Because the issues raised on appeal involve the terms of Baumann’s Chapter 13 plan, this appeal was thereby rendered

moot. See Neidich v. Salas , 783 F.3d 121 5 , 1216 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he dismissal of a Chapter 13 case moots an appeal arising from the debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings.”). Accordingly , this appeal is
DISMISSED
. Case: 16-12615 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 2 of 2
906 Certification
    1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Exchange Act; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Ku6 Media Co., Ltd.
  By:

/s/ Haifa ZhuName:
    Haifa ZhuTitle:
    Acting Chief
Executive Officer
(principal executive
officer)
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Nationalsurvey of drinking and driving attitudes and behaviors
 
1993 |1995 | 1999-v1| 1999-v2|2001-v1| 2001-v2| 2001-v3|2008-v1 | 2008-v2 | 2008-v3
 
 
 
SuDoc Number:TD 8.2:SU 7/6
Item Number:0982-D-51 (online)
System Number:000761286
October 4, 2019
Editorial Note on Part 44
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 44 appear by T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001, and T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801-30803, May 8, 2002.

§ 44.143 General. ( a ) Every export warehouse proprietor shall at the times specified in this subpart make a true and accurate inventory of products held on TTB Form 5220.3 (3373).
( b ) This inventory shall be subject to verification by an appropriate TTB officer. A copy of each inventory shall be retained by the export warehouse proprietor for 3 years following the close of the calendar year in which the inventory is made and shall be made available for inspection by any appropriate TTB officer upon request.
[T.D. ATF-289, 54 FR 48841, Nov. 27, 1989, as amended by T.D. ATF-421, 64 FR 71925, Dec. 22, 1999; T.D. ATF-424, 64 FR 71933, Dec. 22, 1999; T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30802, May 8, 2002]
EXHIBIT 21

                       Subsidiaries of Registrant




                                                Jurisdiction
                                                     of
Name of Subsidiary                             Incorporation


Prime Leasing, Inc.
  d/b/a's: Americom Financial, Inc.               Illinois

ITC Leasing Co. Prime Equities, Ltd.              Illinois

Americom Resources, Inc.
  (formerly Interstate Telecommunications
   Corporation)                                   Illinois

Prime Finance Corp. 1993-A                        Illinois

Prime Finance Corp. 1994-A                        Illinois

Prime Finance Corp. 1995-A                        Illinois

Prime Finance Corp. 1996-A                        Illinois

Prime Finance Corp. 1997-A                        Illinois

Prime Healthcare, Inc.                            Illinois

Capital Alliance Corporation                      Illinois
  f/k/a Financial Alliance Corporation

Prime Receivables Finance Corporation I           Illinois

Prime Receivables Finance Corporation II          Illinois
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

#### § 40.392 Bond.

Every person, before commencing business as a manufacturer of cigarette papers and tubes, shall file a bond on TTB F 5200.25 or 5200.26. Such bond shall be filed in accordance with the applicable provisions of §§ 40.401 through 40.410 and conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. Chapter 52, and regulations thereunder, including, but not limited to, the timely payment of taxes imposed by such chapter and penalties and interest in connection therewith for which the manufacturer may become liable to the United States.

(72 Stat. 1421; 26 U.S.C. 5711)

[T.D. ATF-384, 61 FR 54085, Oct. 17, 1996, as amended by T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5480, Feb. 1, 2011]
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

#### § 40.169 Employer identification number.

The employer identification number (defined at 26 CFR 301.7701-12) of a manufacturer of tobacco products who has been assigned such a number shall be shown on each tax return, Form 5000.24. Failure of the manufacturer to include his employer identification number on Form 5000.24 may result in assertion and collection of the penalty specified in § 70.113 of this chapter.

[T.D. ATF-219, 50 FR 51390, Dec. 17, 1985, as amended by T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47658, Nov. 14, 1990]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7231

ANDREW DAVID OWENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; STATE OF

NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-97-1101-1)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew David Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgment is marked as “filed”

on July 27, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on July 28, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the judgment was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew David Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See Owens v. North Carolina Attorney Gen., No.

CA-97-1101-1 (M.D.N.C. July 28, 1998).* 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
§ 99.64 What is the investigation procedure? ( a ) A complaint must contain specific allegations of fact giving reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act or this part has occurred. A complaint does not have to allege that a violation is based on a policy or practice of the educational agency or institution, other recipient of Department funds under any program administered by the Secretary, or any third party outside of an educational agency or institution.
( b ) The Office investigates a timely complaint filed by a parent or eligible student, or conducts its own investigation when no complaint has been filed or a complaint has been withdrawn, to determine whether an educational agency or institution or other recipient of Department funds under any program administered by the Secretary has failed to comply with a provision of the Act or this part. If the Office determines that an educational agency or institution or other recipient of Department funds under any program administered by the Secretary has failed to comply with a provision of the Act or this part, it may also determine whether the failure to comply is based on a policy or practice of the agency or institution or other recipient. The Office also investigates a timely complaint filed by a parent or eligible student, or conducts its own investigation when no complaint has been filed or a complaint has been withdrawn, to determine whether a third party outside of the educational agency or institution has failed to comply with the provisions of § 99.31(a)(6)(iii)(B) or has improperly redisclosed personally identifiable information from education records in violation of § 99.33. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(B), (f) and (g))
( c ) A timely complaint is defined as an allegation of a violation of the Act that is submitted to the Office within 180 days of the date of the alleged violation or of the date that the complainant knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged violation.
( d ) The Office may extend the time limit in this section for good cause shown.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(B), (f) and (g))
[53 FR 11943, Apr. 11, 1988, as amended at 58 FR 3189, Jan. 7, 1993; 65 FR 41854, July 6, 2000; 73 FR 74854, Dec. 9, 2008; 76 FR 75643, Dec. 2, 2011]
### §§4001 to 4003. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–297, title II, §2303, Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 324

Section 4001, Pub. L. 98–377, title IV, §401, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1287, related to Presidential awards.

Section 4002, Pub. L. 98–377, title IV, §402, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1287, related to administrative provisions.

Section 4003, Pub. L. 98–377, title IV, §403, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1287; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §241, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 901, related to authorization of appropriations.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1988, see section 6303 of Pub. L. 100–297, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 1071 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Heinrich Plessner, Appellant, and Eugenia Silberfeld, Respondent.

Present—Carswell, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
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

31

DAY ELEV

 1,050.07

 1,050.17

 1,050.10

 1,050.07

 1,050.01

 1,049.98

 1,050.01

 1,050.04

 1,050.01

 1,050.01

 1,049.94

 1,049.81

 1,049.74

 1,049.73

 1,049.69

 1,049.57

 1,049.46

 1,049.42

 1,049.43

 1,049.50

 1,049.81

 1,049.88

 1,050.00

 1,049.96

 1,049.98

 1,049.94

 1,049.93

 1,049.91

 1,049.87

 1,049.81

 1,049.77

 1,975.8

 1,976.9

 1,976.1

 1,975.8

 1,975.1

 1,974.8

 1,975.1

 1,975.4

 1,975.1

 1,975.1

 1,974.3

 1,972.9

 1,972.1

 1,972.0

 1,971.6

 1,970.3

 1,969.1

 1,968.6

 1,968.7

 1,969.5

 1,972.9

 1,973.7

 1,975.0

 1,974.6

 1,974.8

 1,974.3

 1,974.2

 1,974.0

 1,973.6

 1,972.9

 1,972.5

STORAGE

+1.1

+1.1

-0.8

-0.3

-0.7

-0.3

+0.3

+0.3

-0.3

+0.0

-0.8

-1.4

-0.8

-0.1

-0.4

-1.3

-1.2

-0.4

+0.1

+0.8

+3.4

+0.8

+1.3

-0.4

+0.2

-0.4

-0.1

-0.2

-0.4

-0.7

-0.4

CHANGE

589

599

428

655

497

632

514

559

555

504

598

503

555

564

416

539

558

621

708

1,140

2,606

1,213

1,796

795

744

558

662

499

371

436

496

INFLOW

 14

 12

 802

 789

 794

 773

 337

 368

 707

 458

 949

 1,185

 892

 584

 591

 1,167

 1,166

 789

 639

 732

 730

 766

 1,097

 991

 620

 775

 710

 599

 560

 722

 706

POWER

 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

SPILL

 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

OUTLET

 21

 32

 14

 32

 36

 25

 11

 25

 14

 46

 36

 36

 50

 35

 46

 35

 0

 53

 14

 21

 163

 60

 36

 25

 14

 4

 7

 11

 32

 46

 11

C.F.S.

 .06

 .09

 .04

 .09

 .10

 .07

 .03

 .07

 .04

 .13

 .10

 .10

 .14

 .10

 .13

 .10

 .00

 .15

 .04

 .06

 .46

 .17

 .10

 .07

 .04

 .01

 .02

 .03

 .09

 .13

 .03

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 2.52

 .09

 .46

 .90

 .02

 .01

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2012 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 9, 2012

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -2.0 21,910 22,024 0 0 991 2.79 4.04

ACRE-FEET -2,000 43,458 43,685 0 0 1,966

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 43,685

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 43,685

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 4.04

JULY 1, 2011 9.74

 1,974.7

Table 13
Affirmed and Opinion Filed June 10, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00248-CV IN RE SAMSON HADIS ALEMAYEHU, DECEASED On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-1377-3 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald Opinion by Justice O’Neill Tsion S. Mekonnen appeals the trial court’s order granting Robert D. Hemphill’s application to pay attorney’s fees and reimburse costs in th e amount of $6,961.85. This Court, by letter dated August 19, 2013, notified Mekonnen th at her pro se brief did not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 38.1 and informed her that failu re to file an amended brief within ten days may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice from the Court. Mekonnen filed a motion to extend time to f ile a brief on August 29, 2013. We granted the motion and ordered her to file an amende d brief by October 4, 2013. Mekonnen did not file an amended brief. We construe liberally pro se pleadings and br iefs; however, we hold pr o se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and require them to comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Washington v. Bank of N.Y. , 362 S.W.3d 853, 854 (T ex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.). The law is well-established that, to presen t an issue to this Court, a party’s brief shall–2– contain, among other things, a co ncise, non-argumentative statemen t of facts supported by record references, and clear and concise arguments with appropriate citations to authorities and the record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1; Washington , 362 S.W.3d at 854. Bare asse rtions of error, without argument or authority, waive error. Washington , 362 S.W.3d at 854. Thus, when a party fails to adequately brief a complaint, she waives the issue on appeal. Id

. In her “brief,” Mekonnen appears to challenge the amount of attorn ey’s fees awarded; however, she has failed to provide any argument, an alysis, or authorities that make her appellate complaint viable. By failing to adequately brie f her complaint, she has waived review of it. Id

. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

130248F.P05 /Michael J. O’Neill/ MICHAEL J. O’NEILL JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
In re Samson Hadis Alemayehu, Deceased
No. 05-13-00248-CV On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-1377-3. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill. Justices Moseley and FitzGerald participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. It is ORDERED that appellee Robert D. Hemphill recover his costs of this appeal from appellant Tsion S. Mekonnen.
Judgment entered June 10, 2014

/Michael J. O’Neill MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE
### §1134c. Fellowship conditions

#### (a) Requirements for receipt

An individual awarded a fellowship under the provisions of this subpart shall continue to receive payments provided in section 1134b of this title only during such periods as the Secretary finds that such individual is maintaining satisfactory proficiency in, and devoting essentially full time to, study or research in the field in which such fellowship was awarded, in an institution of higher education, and is not engaging in gainful employment other than part-time employment by such institution in teaching, research, or similar activities, approved by the Secretary.

#### (b) Reports from recipients

The Secretary is authorized to require reports containing such information in such form and filed at such times as the Secretary determines necessary from any person awarded a fellowship under the provisions of this subpart. The reports shall be accompanied by a certificate from an appropriate official at the institution of higher education, library, archive, or other research center approved by the Secretary, stating that such individual is making satisfactory progress in, and is devoting essentially full time to the program for which the fellowship was awarded.

(Pub. L. 89–329, title VII, §704, as added Pub. L. 105–244, title VII, §701, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1789.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 1134k of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–244.

A prior section 1134c, Pub. L. 89–329, title IX, §913, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title IX, §901, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 762, related to use of funds by grant recipients, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–244, §3, title VII, §702, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1585, 1803, effective Oct. 1, 1998.

Another prior section 1134c, Pub. L. 89–329, title IX, §904, as added Pub. L. 92–318, title I, §181(a), June 23, 1972, 86 Stat. 306; amended Pub. L. 96–374, title XIII, §1391(a)(1), Oct. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1503, authorized studies and research activities on the need for, and improvement of, graduate programs, prior to the general amendment of subchapter IX of this chapter by Pub. L. 99–498.

Another prior section 1134c, Pub. L. 89–329, title IX, §911, as added Pub. L. 90–575, title II, §261, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1044, provided for authorization to award public service fellowships, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 92–318.

A prior section 704 of Pub. L. 89–329 was classified to section 1132a–3 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 96–374.

Prior sections 1134c–1 and 1134c–2 were repealed by Pub. L. 105–244, §3, title VII, §702, Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1585, 1803, effective Oct. 1, 1998.

Section 1134c–1, Pub. L. 89–329, title IX, §914, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title IX, §901, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 762, related to information collection.

Section 1134c–2, Pub. L. 89–329, title IX, §915, as added Pub. L. 102–325, title IX, §901, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 762, authorized appropriations for part A of former subchapter IX of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 18
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 18 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5471, 5472, Jan. 19, 2001.

§ 18.39 Qualification to alternate a volatile fruit-flavor concentrate plant and a distilled spirits plant. A proprietor of a volatile fruit-flavor concentrate plant operating a contiguous distilled spirits plant may alternate the use of such premises between the two functions through extension and curtailment by filing with the appropriate TTB officer the following information: ( a ) TTB Form 27-G (5520.3) and TTB Form 5110.41 to cover the proposed alternation of premises;
( b ) A special diagram, in duplicate, delineating the premises as they will exist, both during extension and curtailment and clearly depicting all buildings, floors, rooms, areas, equipment and pipe lines (identified individually by letter or number) which are to be subject to alternation, in their relative operating sequence; and
( c ) A bond or a consent of surety to cover the proposed alternation of premises if the proprietor is required to hold a bond under § 19.151 of this chapter to cover the distilled spirits plant premises subject to alternation.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1513-0006) [T.D. ATF-455, 66 FR 29482, May 31, 2001, as amended by T.D. TTB-146, 82 FR 1119, Jan. 4, 2017]
### Part 2—Administration: Requirements and Limitations
#### Tannenbaum Slater Construction Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Liberty Dry Dock, Inc., Appellant, and Ben Cohen, Defendant-Respondent.

No opinion. Present—Carswell, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.