alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William H. Beadle *v.*Walter Cole *et al.*

*Opinion filed April 21, 1898*

*—Rehearing denied June 15, 1898.*

This suit involves the same title adjudicated upon and held good in *Whitehead*v. *Hall,*148 Ill. 253, and, the same questions being involved, the decision in that case controls this.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clark county; the Hon. H. Van Sellar, Judge, presiding.

S. S. Whitehead, for appellant.

Golden, Scholfield & Booth, and Robert E. Hamill, for appellees.

Per Curiam :

This is an appeal by plaintiff.below from a judgment for defendants below in an action of ejectment. The suit involves the same title which was adjudicated upon and settled by this court in *Whitehead*v. *Hall,*148 Ill. 253. That suit was brought for one part of a tract of 255 acres, and this suit is for another. The appellant here occupies no better position than the appellant occupied in that case. He assails the same title, founded on the same redemption sale, which in the case cited was held good. We have carefully examined and considered the elaborate arguments made by appellant for a reconsideration of the questions involved, but are unable to see that any error was committed in the decision mentioned. The fact urged upon our attention that the redemption creditor was a defendant to the first foreclosure suit did not deprive him of the right to redeem under his own decree rendered in the second foreclosure suit. *(Boynton*v. *Pierce,*151 Ill. 197.) We see no reason for overruling the former case, but are satisfied it was correctly decided.

The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 11.5 Informal review of adverse decisions. ( a ) *Required informal review of FSA adverse decisions.* Except with respect to farm credit programs, a participant must seek an informal review of an adverse decision issued at the field service office level by an officer or employee of FSA, or by any employee of a county or area committee established under section 8(b)(5) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, 16 U.S.C. 590h(b)(5), before NAD will accept an appeal of a FSA adverse decision. Such informal review shall be done by the county or area committee with responsibility for the adverse decision at issue. The procedures for requesting such an informal review before FSA are found in 7 CFR part 780. After receiving a decision upon review by a county or area committee, a participant may seek further informal review by the State FSA committee or may appeal directly to NAD under § 11.6(b).
( b ) *Optional informal review.* With respect to adverse decisions issued at the State office level of FSA and adverse decisions of all other agencies, a participant may request an agency informal review of an adverse decision of that agency prior to appealing to NAD. Procedures for requesting such an informal review are found at 7 CFR part 780 (FSA), 7 CFR part 614 (NRCS), 7 CFR part 1900, subpart B (RUS), 7 CFR part 1900, subpart B (RBS), and 7 CFR part 1900, subpart B (RHS).
( c ) *Mediation.* A participant also shall have the right to utilize any available alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or mediation program, including any mediation program available under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, 7 U.S.C. 5101 *et seq.*, in order to attempt to seek resolution of an adverse decision of an agency prior to a NAD hearing. If a participant: ( 1 ) Requests mediation or ADR prior to filing an appeal with NAD, the participant stops the running of the 30-day period during which a participant may appeal to NAD under § 11.6(b)(1), and will have the balance of days remaining in that period to appeal to NAD once mediation or ADR has concluded.
( 2 ) Requests mediation or ADR after having filed an appeal to NAD under § 11.6(b), but before the hearing, the participant will be deemed to have waived his right to have a hearing within 45 days under § 11.8(c)(1) but shall have a right to have a hearing within 45 days after conclusion of mediation or ADR.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7921

TARIF ABDULLAH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-1050-WMN-1) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tarif Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tarif Abdullah, a Maryland inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, which the district court construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdullah has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Abdullah’s motions for appointment of counsel and for oral argument, 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
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

# Resource: Cheat Sheet for Men’s Cancer Screenings

This factsheet highlights the screenings that are available for some of the cancers that most often affect men, as well as information about when they should be administered. 

http://blogs.cdc.gov/cancer/2016/06/13/mens-cancer-screening-cheat-sheet/?s_cid=govD_CancerMensCheatSheet_1&utm_source=youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=reports-and-resources
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6501

HERSCHEL W. VICK EL, a/k/a Herschel W. Vick,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER EDWARD CARMEAN; CHIEF ARNOLD DOWNING,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:15-cv-03355-GLR)

Submitted: August 31, 2018 Decided: September 11, 2018

Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herschel W. Vick El, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Herschel W. Vick El appeals the district court’s order granting Appellees’ motion 

for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. The district court held that 

Vick El’s excessive force claim against Officer Carmean was barred by Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 485-87 (1994), because a judgment in his favor would 

necessarily imply that his previous criminal conviction for resisting arrest was invalid. 

On appeal, Appellees concede that, after the reversal of Vick El’s state court 

conviction for resisting arrest, the Heck doctrine is inapplicable. Because Vick El’s 

charge remains pending on the Maryland state court’s stet docket, we find that abstention 

was warranted under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). See Traverso v. 

Penn, 874 F.2d 209, 212-13 (4th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we vacate the summary 

judgment entered by the district court and remand for entry of an order staying further 

proceedings pending the ultimate termination of Maryland’s state prosecution of Vick El 

for resisting arrest. This stay shall include any relevant state collateral review 

proceedings, whether by adjudication on the merits or by a decision of the state at any 

point to abandon or forego the prosecution. We grant Vick El leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and deny Appellees’ motion to strike Vick El’s informal brief. 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. 

VACATED AND REMANDED
Order filed November 19, 2020

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00729-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF J.A.A., JR.

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 4

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-CJV-023528

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from an order of a juvenile court waiving 

jurisdiction and transferring appellant to criminal district court signed October 2, 

2020. The notice of appeal was due October 22, 2020. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 

§ 56.01(h); Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(b). Appellant, however, filed his notice of appeal 

on October 26, 2020, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting 

instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 

615, 617 (Tex. 1997); see Hone v. Hanafin, 104 S.W.3d 884, 885 (Tex. 2003) (per 

curiam) (applying Verburgt to accelerated appeals). Appellant did not file a motion 
2

to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, 

appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support 

the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 

805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to

file the notice of appeal on or before November 30, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 

10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we may dismiss the appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Hassan.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7272

JOHN L. WHITE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARK A. HENRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA99-1752-CCB) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 24, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John L. White, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on September 1, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on September 2, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order 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:John L. White appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See White v. Henry , No. CA-99-1752-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 2, 1999). * 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.

AFFIRMED
OMB Control Number 2070-0060; EPA ICR Number 0277.15 

 ICR ATTACHMENT B

 Forms for Pesticide Registration 

EPA Form 8570-1, Application for Pesticide, Registration, Amendment, Other

EPA Form 8570-4, Confidential Statement of Formula (CSF)

EPA Form 8570-27, Formulator’s Exemption Statement

EPA Form 8570-34, Certification With Respect to Citation of Data

EPA Form 8570-35, Data Matrix

EPA Form 8570-36, Summary of the Physical/chemical Properties

EPA Form 8570-37, Self-certification Statement for the Physical/Chemical Properties
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-49592)pertaining to the Bank Mutual Corporation 401k Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-60498) pertaining to the Bank Mutual Corporation 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, and in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-115138) pertaining to the Bank Mutual Corporation 2004Stock Incentive Plan of our reports dated January 27, 2006 with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Bank Mutual Corporation and Subsidiaries, Bank Mutual Corporationmanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Bank Mutual Corporation andSubsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLPMarch 7, 2006
Exhibit
32.1





BAB,
Inc.


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 BAB, Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
period ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Evans, 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, to the
best of my knowledge:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows
      of the Company.





Date: 
      February 23, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Michael W. EvansMichael
      W. Evans, Chief Executive Officer
#### Sargent & Company, appellant, v. Maryland Building Corporation et al., appellees.

Gen. No. 34,632.

*649Opinion filed April 15, 1931.

John H. Roser, for appellant.

Hyman Soboroff, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 1131.32 Other reports.

In addition to the reports required pursuant to § 1131.30 and § 1131.31, each handler shall report any information the market administrator deems necessary to verify or establish each handler's obligation under the order.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          65,305
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             334
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                10,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    204,707
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          97,685
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            98,238
<LOANS>                                      1,082,674
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,466,308
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,263,728
<SHORT-TERM>                                    40,688
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,195
<LONG-TERM>                                     17,210
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,411
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,076
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,466,308
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 87,749
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               19,385
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,222
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               108,356
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              42,208
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,732
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           63,624
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,441
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 406
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 51,681
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,774
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      20,774
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,774
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.82
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,276
<LOANS-PAST>                                       961
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   317
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,033
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,518
<RECOVERIES>                                       566
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,681
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,681
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### § 1131.14 Other source milk.

See § 1000.14.
§ 1000.8 Nonpool plant. *Nonpool plant* means any milk receiving, manufacturing, or processing plant other than a pool plant. The following categories of nonpool plants are further defined as follows: ( a ) *A plant fully regulated under another Federal order* means a plant that is fully subject to the pricing and pooling provisions of another Federal order.
( b ) *Producer-handler plant* means a plant operated by a producer-handler as defined under any Federal order.
( c ) *Partially regulated distributing plant* means a nonpool plant that is not a plant fully regulated under another Federal order, a producer-handler plant, or an exempt plant, from which there is route disposition in the marketing area during the month.
( d ) *Unregulated supply plant* means a supply plant that does not qualify as a pool supply plant and is not a plant fully regulated under another Federal order, a producer-handler plant, or an exempt plant.
( e ) *An exempt plant* means a plant described in this paragraph that is exempt from the pricing and pooling provisions of any order provided that the operator of the plant files reports as prescribed by the market administrator of any marketing area in which the plant distributes packaged fluid milk products to enable determination of the handler's exempt status: ( 1 ) A plant that is operated by a governmental agency that has no route disposition in commercial channels;
( 2 ) A plant that is operated by a duly accredited college or university disposing of fluid milk products only through the operation of its own facilities with no route disposition in commercial channels;
( 3 ) A plant from which the total route disposition is for individuals or institutions for charitable purposes without remuneration; or
( 4 ) A plant that has route disposition and packaged sales of fluid milk products to other plants of 150,000 pounds or less during the month.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Re-Imagine, Re-Tool, Re-Commit      

# Resource: Re-Imagine, Re-Tool, Re-Commit

This animated video offers advice for the school improvement process that was suggested by members of the Equity and School Improvement Community of Practice. The video includes advice within these five areas of the school improvement process:  
                  -  Designation of low performing schools  
                  -  Crafting messages  
                  -  Setting planning requirements  
                  -  Supporting changes  
                  -  Sustaining improvements  

**Learn more.**