alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10177 Summary Calendar

CARLOS WAYNE TOOMBS, also known as Carlos Wayne Durham , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. DIANNA MASSINGILL, Assistant District Attorney; TIM CANTRELL, Trial Counsel; RICKY DEARMAN, Amarillo Police Officer; SERGEANT JIM MCKENNY, Amarillo Police Officer , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:14

- CV

- 262

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Wayne Toombs, Texas prisoner # 1109593 , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 complaint as frivolous and malicious. According to Toombs, the district court erred in determining that the claims in his complaint were barred under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994) , and thus frivolous

. W e find no abuse of discretion in the determi nation because

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 3, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10177 Document: 00513489889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2016No. 15

- 10177

2 the complaint seeks monetary damages from defense counsel, the prosecutor, and two police officers “for the unjustified deprivation of [ Toombs’s ] life, liberty and property” but does not allege that hi s conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, set aside, or otherwise undermined

. See Boyd v. Biggers , 31 F.3d 279, 283 (5th Cir. 1994). Nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the
district court’s determination that the complaint , which was duplicative of a prior § 1983 suit, w as malicious. See Bailey v. Johnson , 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988)

. Further, Toombs fails to assert or demonstrate any error in the district court’s rejection of his DNA testing claim , which he raised in a postjudgment motion

. See Skinner v. Switz er , 562 U.S. 521, 525 (2011); Dist

. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne , 557 U.S. 52, 69 (2009). The appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS

. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2 . The motions for an evidentiary hearing and to compel the production of evidence
are DENIED. We previously warned Toombs that he had two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The district court’s dismissal of his complaint in this case , as well as our dismissal of t his appeal, count as additional strikes

. See Coleman v. Tollefson , 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763

- 64 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons , 1 03 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Toombs has accumulated more than three strikes, he is BARRED from proceeding IFP in any civil action while he is
incarcerated unless he is under imminent da nger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Case: 15-10177 Document: 00513489889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2016
#### §§ 1970.56-1970.100 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

OLUBAYA MUDADA MENSAH RANGER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 311 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of December, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED

.
§ 1230.60 Promotion, research, and consumer information. ( a ) The Board shall receive and evaluate, or, on its own initiative, develop, and submit to the Secretary for approval, any plans and projects. Such plans and projects shall provide for: ( 1 ) The establishment, issuance, effectuation, and administration of appropriate plans and projects for promotion, research, and consumer information with respect to pork and pork products designed to strengthen the position of the pork industry in the marketplace and to maintain, develop, and expand domestic and foreign markets for pork and pork products;
( 2 ) The establishment and conduct of research and studies with respect to the sale, distribution, marketing, and utilization of pork and pork products and the creation of new products thereof, to the end that marketing and utilization of pork and pork products may be encouraged, expanded, improved, or made more acceptable.
( b ) Each plan and project shall be periodically reviewed or evaluated by the Board to ensure that the plan and project contributes to an effective and coordinated program of promotion, research, and consumer information. If it is found by the Board that any such plan and project does not further the purposes of the Act, the Board shall terminate such plan and project.
( c ) No plan or project shall make a false or misleading claim on behalf of pork or a pork product or a false or misleading statement with respect to an attribute or use of a competing product.
( d ) No plan or project shall undertake to advertise or promote pork or pork products by private brand or trade name unless such advertisement or promotion is specifically approved by the Board, with the concurrence of the Secretary.
exhibit4_1.htm




Incorporated under the laws of the Sate of New York


 


ROMANTIQUE LTD.


 


Authorized to issue 50,000,000 common shares


Par value $0.0001 each


 


This certifies that _______________ is the owner of _______________


fully paid and non-assessable shares of common shares of Romantique Ltd.  transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.


 


In witness whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the Corporation this ____ day of _________ , __________.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6791

DENNIS RAY GRAVES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA, in re: Montgomery

County Circuit Court,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-01-250-7)

Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: July 5, 2001

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Ray Graves, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Ray Graves, a Virginia inmate, appeals two district

court orders, the first dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp.

2000) for failure to state a claim, and the second denying his

motion for reconsideration of the first order. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and orders, and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Graves v. Supreme Court of Virginia, No. CA-01-

250-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2001 & May 7, 2001). 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
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1951.892-1951.893 [Reserved]
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 198 

To repeal Public Law 107–40. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2013 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. GRIJALVA, and Ms. EDWARDS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To repeal Public Law 107–40. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repeal of the Author5 ization for Use of Military Force’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDING. 

7 Congress finds that the Authorization for Use of Mili8 tary Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), 

9 signed into law on September 18, 2001, has been used 

10 to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the 

11 use of military force and such an interpretation is inconVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:53 Jan 11, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H198.IH H198

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 198 IH

1 sistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and 

2 make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitu3 tion in the Government of the United States. 

4 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107–40. 

5 Effective 180 days after the date of the enactment 

6 of this Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force 

7 (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby re8 pealed. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1978 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the phasedown 

of the credit percentage for the dependent care tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2013 

Ms. SCHWARTZ (for herself and Mr. KIND) 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 repeal 

the phasedown of the credit percentage for the dependent 

care tax credit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Support Working Par5 ents Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PHASEDOWN OF CREDIT PERCENTAGE 

7 FOR DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 21 of the 

9 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenses for 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1978 IH

1 household and dependent care services necessary for gain2 ful employment) is amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of an in4 dividual for which there are 1 or more qualifying individ5 uals with respect to such individual, there shall be allowed 

6 as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for 

7 the taxable year an amount equal to 35 percent of the 

8 employment-related expenses paid by such individual dur9 ing the taxable year.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 1726.204 [Reserved]
NL INDUSTRIES, INC.                    Contact:    Gregory M. Swalwell
Three Lincoln Centre                               Vice President,  Finance and
5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1700                          Chief Financial Officer
Dallas, Texas   75240-2697                         (972) 233-1700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESS RELEASE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[LOGO GOES HERE]


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



              NL INDUSTRIES, INC. ANNOUNCES CASH QUARTERLY DIVIDEND


         DALLAS,  TEXAS - August  31,  2005 - NL  Industries,  Inc.  (NYSE:  NL)
announced  today that its board of directors  has  declared a regular  quarterly
dividend of  twenty-five  cents ($0.25) per share on its common stock to be paid
in cash. The dividend is payable on September 28, 2005 to shareholders of record
at the close of business on September 13, 2005.

         NL  Industries,  Inc. is engaged in the component  products  (precision
ball bearing slides,  security products and ergonomic computer support systems),
titanium dioxide pigments and other businesses.

                                    * * * * *
| CONFIDENTIALKEIP & Centurion Plans       Exhibit10.9ProgramParticipantsPurposeMetrics/Timing*Target as % of Ann. SalaryCostKEIPApproved 7/23/09•8 select VPs•Maximize estate value•Rapid emergence from bankruptcy•Perform key restructuring functionsMilestone 1 (50% of target)•Measured 10/1/09•Equal weighting of ending cash balance(1)and EBITDAMilestone 2 (50% of target + upside opportunity) •Later of 4/1/10 or 30 days after Confirmation of Plan of Reorganization•Based on 4/1/10 EBITDA•Target:  70%•Max:  100%-Upside payout tied to Milestone 2 based on aggressive EBITDA target set with creditors & court•~$2.0M(at target)•~$2.8M(at max)Centurion Plan(Pre-& Post-petition)Approved 6/29/09•Pre-Petition: 55 EEson current plan •Post-Petition:    Non-insiders 101 EEs•Address current Centurion participants•Retain key employees•Pre-Petition: -100% upon approval•Post-Petition: -33% on 10/1/09-66% on 4/1/10•Pre:    2%-21%•Post:  5%-30%•~$1.0M•~$2.5M*In the event of the sale of the company or termination by the company (job eliminationor restructuring) prior to the period-ending date, the full award forthat period will be pro-rated.(1)Excludes cash from Samsung settlement and sale of Wireless business. Japan receipts accounted for per Financial Plan assumptions –accounting changes to be adjusted accordingly. |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Lucien J. INGRASSIA, Claimant-Appellee, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2007-7011.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 1, 2007.

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

RADER, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to stay proceedings in the above-captioned appeal pending .the court’s disposition of *Mlechick v. Nicholson,*2006-7362. Lucien J. Ingrassia opposes and moves to dismiss the Secretary’s appeal. The Secretary opposes the motion to dismiss.* The court considers sua sponte whether summary af-firmance of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ judgment, *Ingrassia v. Nicholson,*04-516, 2006 WL 2128621 (Vet.App. 2006), is warranted.

In *Mayfield v. Nicholson,*444 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2006), we held that:

> [T]he duty of affirmative notification [as to the evidence that is needed and who shall be responsible for providing it] is not satisfied by various post-decisional communications from which a claimant might have been able to infer what evidence the VA found lacking in the claimant’s presentation.... [SJection 5103 requires the VCAA notification to be issued prior to the initial decision on the claim, not afterwards.

In the decision on appeal, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims determined that “the Board relied solely on post-deci-sional documents in determining that Mr. Ingrassia received adequate notice under section 5103(a)” thus committing remanda-ble error under *Mayfield.*

Summary affirmance of a case “is appropriate, *inter alia,*when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding *980the outcome of the appeal exists.” *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994) (summarily affirming the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of a complaint). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims correctly determined that remand was required pursuant to *Mayfield.*Thus, because no substantial question exists regarding the outcome of the Secretary’s appeal, the court summarily affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to stay is denied.

(2) The judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is summarily affirmed.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

*

 We grant the Secretary's motion for an extension of time to file his opposition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000793322
<NAME>                        PSS, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              NOV-02-1996
<PERIOD-START>                 OCT-29-1995
<PERIOD-END>                   NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                             276
<SECURITIES>                     5,250
<RECEIVABLES>                       65
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     0
<PP&E>                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   5,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            5,155
<BONDS>                         35,362
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                     (34,926)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     5,591
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   459
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  (197)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                (2,355)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (2,601)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (3,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (3,020)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    (3,020)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 1737.101 Amounts spent for preloan activities.

If the borrower desires to credit amounts spent for preloan activities against any equity or general funds required by the loan contract, it shall submit an itemized statement of such expenditures to the Area Office. These expenditures will be accounted for on RUS Form 503, “Release of Telephone Loan Funds,” if RUS determines that the amounts spent are reasonable based on normal industry practice and that the procedures set forth in 7 CFR part 1737, subpart D, have been complied with. Statements of preloan expenditures will be verified as to accuracy by loan fund audits.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0572-0085)
§ 1700.32 Program Accounting and Regulatory Analysis. RUS, through Program Accounting and Regulatory Analysis, monitors and administers applicable regulations, RUS policy, and accounting requirements. The staffs assist the Assistant Administrator with respect to management, information systems, budgets, and other such matters. ( a ) *The Assistant Administrator, Program Accounting and Regulatory Analysis,* directs and coordinates program accounting and financial services with respect to electric and telecommunications borrowers and directs and coordinates the regulatory actions of the agency.
( b ) This division monitors borrowers' accounting operations in order to ensure compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget.
( c ) The two regional branches (the Northern Region and the Southern Region) work directly with borrowers. Each regional office has a staff of headquarters and field accountants. The Technical Accounting and Auditing Staff monitors industry developments, including the standards of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and recommends Agency policies and procedures.
( d ) Program Development and Regulatory Analysis directs and administers the preparation, clearance, processing, and distribution of RUS submissions to the Office of the Federal Register in the form of proposed and final rules and notices and RUS bulletins and staff instructions.
[63 FR 16085, Apr. 2, 1998. Redesignated at 71 FR 8436, Feb. 17, 2006]
http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_Quick_Start_Guide_v1 .4_en.zip
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13 -382V (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* KAREN G. SCHMIDT, * * Filed: July 30, 2015 Petitioner, * * Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s

v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner

Justine Walters, U.S. Dep ’ t of Washington, DC, for Respondent

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On June 7, 201 3

, Karen Schmidt filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On January 12, 2015, Petitioner ’ s counsel moved for a decision on the record. On January 28, 2015, Respondent responded, arguing that the case be dismissed. I then issued a decision dismissing the case for insufficient proof on March 11, 2015.

The parties have now filed a stipulation on July 30, 2015, in which they jointly propose that Petitioner’s counsel receive a lump sum of $20,469.00, in the form of a check payable to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel. In addition, and in compliance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that she did incur any reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unw arranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id

.I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly,

an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $20,469.00 payable jointly to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s co unsel, Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER
JUDGME NT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 2



### IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the ir right to seek review.