alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6600

NELSON RIVAS, a/k/a Nelson Rivas Alvarez,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JAMES N. CROSS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:10-cv-00098-JPB-DJJ)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nelson Rivas, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nelson Rivas, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & 

Supp. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Rivas v. Cross, No. 2:10-cv-00098-JPBDJJ (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 27, 2011). 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
#### § 900.23 Evaluation.

FDA shall evaluate annually the performance of each certification agency. The evaluation shall include the use of performance indicators that address the adequacy of program performance in certification, inspection, and enforcement activities. FDA will also consider any additional information deemed relevant by FDA that has been provided by the certification body or other sources or has been required by FDA as part of its oversight mandate. The evaluation also shall include a review of any changes in the standards or procedures in the areas listed in §§ 900.21(b) and 900.22 that have taken place since the original application or the last evaluation, whichever is most recent. The evaluation shall include a determination of whether there are major deficiencies in the certification agency's regulations or performance that, if not corrected, would warrant withdrawal of the approval of the certification agency under the provisions of § 900.24, or minor deficiencies that would require corrective action.
§ 1.1271-1 Special rules applicable to amounts received on retirement, sale, or exchange of debt instruments. ( a ) *Intention to call before maturity* — ( 1 ) *In general.* For purposes of section 1271(a)(2), all or a portion of gain realized on a sale or exchange of a debt instrument to which section 1271 applies is treated as interest income if there was an intention to call the debt instrument before maturity. An intention to call a debt instrument before maturity means a written or oral agreement or understanding not provided for in the debt instrument between the issuer and the original holder of the debt instrument that the issuer will redeem the debt instrument before maturity. In the case of debt instruments that are part of an issue, the agreement or understanding must be between the issuer and the original holders of a substantial amount of the debt instruments in the issue. An intention to call before maturity can exist even if the intention is conditional (e.g., the issuer's decision to call depends on the financial condition of the issuer on the potential call date) or is not legally binding. For purposes of this section, original holder means the first holder (other than an underwriter or dealer that purchased the debt instrument for resale in the ordinary course of its trade or business).
( 2 ) *Exceptions.* In addition to the exceptions provided in sections 1271(a)(2)(B) and 1271(b), section 1271(a)(2) does not apply to— ( i ) A debt instrument that is publicly offered (as defined in § 1.1275-1(h));
( ii ) A debt instrument to which section 1272(a)(6) applies (relating to certain interests in or mortgages held by a REMIC, and certain other debt instruments with payments subject to acceleration); or
( iii ) A debt instrument sold pursuant to a private placement memorandum that is distributed to more than ten offerees and that is subject to the sanctions of section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77l) or the prohibitions of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j).
( b ) *Short-term obligations* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Under sections 1271 (a)(3) and (a)(4), all or a portion of the gain realized on the sale or exchange of a short-term government or nongovernment obligation is treated as interest income. Sections 1271 (a)(3) and (a)(4), however, do not apply to any short-term obligation subject to section 1281. See § 1.1272-1(f) for rules to determine if an obligation is a short-term obligation.
( 2 ) *Method of making elections.* Elections to accrue on a constant yield basis under sections 1271 (a)(3)(E) and (a)(4)(D) are made on an obligation-by-obligation basis by reporting the transaction on the basis of daily compounding on the taxpayer's timely filed Federal income tax return for the year of the sale or exchange. These elections are irrevocable.
( 3 ) *Counting conventions.* In computing the ratable share of acquisition discount under section 1271(a)(3) or OID under section 1271(a)(4), any reasonable counting convention may be used (e.g., 30 days per month/360 days per year).
[T.D. 8517, 59 FR 4809, Feb. 2, 1994]
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 13.1 MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER
MATTERS

        The Company commenced its initial public offering on May 22, 1996, at a
price to the public of $23.50 per share. Since that date, the Company's Class A
Common Stock has been traded on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol
WWCA. There currently is no established public trading market for the Company's
Class B Common Stock. The following table sets forth the quarterly high and low
bid quotations for the Class A Common Stock on the NASDAQ Stock Market. These 
quotations reflect the inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down 
or commission and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
1997                                               High                 Low
----                                               ----                 ---
<S>                                               <C>                   <C>
First quarter ..........................          $16 1/8               $12

Second quarter .........................          $16 7/8               $10

Third quarter ..........................          $19 1/8               $13 5/8

Fourth quarter .........................          $22 1/4               $16 1/2

1996  
---- 

Second quarter .........................          $25 1/2               $19 7/8

Third quarter ..........................          $22 1/8               $13 3/4

Fourth quarter .........................          $18 1/8               $13    
</TABLE>

        The Company has never declared or paid dividends on its Common Stock and
does not anticipate paying dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition,
certain provisions of the Senior Secured Facilities (as described in
"Management's Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial
Condition-Liquidity and Capital Resources") and the indentures of its public
debt offerings contain restrictions on the Company's ability to declare and pay
dividends on its Common Stock.
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.1500 Gustometer. ( a ) *Identification.* A gustometer is a battery-powered device that consists of two electrodes that are intended to be placed on both sides of the tongue at different taste centers and that provides a galvanic stimulus resulting in taste sensation. It is used for assessing the sense of taste.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 874.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180 of this chapter, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198 of this chapter, with respect to complaint files.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 65 FR 2316, Jan. 14, 2000]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MANUEL ESPINOZA-TALAMANTES, Defendant - Appellant. No. 18-2123 (D.C. No. 2:18-CR-01029-WJ-1) (D. N.M.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before TYMKOVICH , Chief Judge, HOLMES and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Following his acceptan ce of a plea agreemen t that included a wa iver of his right to appeal, Manuel Espinoza- Talamantes pleaded guilty to r e-entry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). He was sente nced to 42 months’ imprisonment. Despite the waiver , he appealed. T he government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver. See United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In evaluating a motion to enfor ce a waiver, we consider: “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appella te rights; (2) whether

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata , and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 1 0th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 9, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 the defendant knowingly and vol untarily waived his appellate ri ghts; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would resu lt in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. Espinoza-Talamantes’ counsel has filed a response in which he s ays that he “does not have a good faith legal or fact ual basis to contest the governm ent’s [m]otion.” Resp. at 1. Our independent review confirms t hat the proposed issue for app eal (identified as an appeal of his sentence in E spinoza-Talamantes’ Docketing Statement) falls within the scope of his waiver . The plea agreement clearly set s forth the waiver and states that it was knowing and vo luntary, and the district cour t discussed the waiver and voluntariness at t he plea hearing. There is no contradicto ry evidence indicating that Espinoza-Talamantes did not knowingly and voluntarily acce pt the waiver. Finally, there is no indication th at enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice as defined in Hahn , 359 F.3d at 1327. The motion to enforce is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5065 Human allotypic marker immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A human allotypic marker immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to identify by immunochemical techniques the inherited human protein allotypic markers (such as nGm, nA2 m, and Km allotypes) in serum and other body fluids. The identification may be used while studying population genetics.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 2312, Jan. 14, 2000]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8016 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8016

  To exclude the Arizona Families Tax Rebate from Federal income tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 16, 2024

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To exclude the Arizona Families Tax Rebate from Federal income tax.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR ARIZONA FAMILIES TAX REBATE 
              PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
gross income shall not include any amount received by an individual as 
an Arizona Families Tax Rebate payment.
    (b) Arizona Families Tax Rebate Payment.--For purposes of this 
section, the term ``Arizona Families Tax Rebate Payment'' means any 
amount received by or on behalf of an individual--
            (1) pursuant to Arizona Senate Bill 1734, and
            (2) which is issued by the Arizona Department of Revenue 
        with respect to the 2023 taxable year.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Harbinger Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-61893), (No. 333-30219), (No. 333-96774), (No. 333-42959) and (No.
333-03247) on Form S-8 of Harbinger Corporation of our reports dated February 5,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Harbinger Corporation as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, comprehensive loss, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1998, and the related
financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the 1998 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Harbinger Corporation.

Our reports dated February 5, 1999, which included reference to other auditors
with respect to 1996, as they related to the 1996 financial statements of
Premenos Technology Corp. and subsidiaries, which are included in the
consolidated financial statements of Harbinger Corporation, are based solely on
the report of the other auditors as it relates to the amounts included for
Premenos Technology Corp. and subsidiaries for 1996.




                                            /s/ KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1999
§ 884.3200 Cervical drain. ( a ) *Identification.* A cervical drain is a device designed to provide an exit channel for draining discharge from the cervix after pelvic surgery.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71816, Dec. 30, 2019]
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of March 31, 2003 and for the period then ended.

 

|                                           |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ GLADE M. KNIGHT                            |   |   |        |
|                                                |   |   |   |
| **Glade M. Knight****Chief Executive Officer** |   |   |   |

 

|                                                                               |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ STANLEY J. OLANDER,JR.                                                         |   |   |        |
|                                                                                    |   |   |   |
| **Stanley J. Olander, Jr.****Executive Vice President****Chief Financial Officer** |   |   |   |

 

May 13, 2003
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

YOASHIE ASHE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-304

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AND ROBINSON 

HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

Non-Final Appeal from the 

Circuit Court for Orange County,

Keith F. White , Judge.

Yoashie Ashe, Orlando, pro se.

Shaib Y. Rios, of Brock & Scott, PLLC, Fort 

Lauderdale, for U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., 

Appellee.

No appearance for other Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Yoashie Ashe (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s January 25, 2016 order 

denying his motions to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of U.S. 

Bank Trust, N.A. (“Appellee”). The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on 

Appellant’s motions to vacate and mailed a notice of the hearing. The notice, however, 
2

was mailed to an incorrect address. The unopened envelope was returned to the 

courthouse as undelivered. The hearing went forward as scheduled without Appellant. 

Appellant claims that his absence was due to a lack of notice. 

Appellant correctly asserts that he was entitled to notice of the hearing so that he 

could attend. We express no opinion on the merits of Appellant’s motions to vacate. 

Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to reschedule the hearing on Appellant’s 

motions to vacate with properly addressed notices of hearing being provided to all 

concerned parties.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
§ 1.1036-1 Stock for stock of the same corporation. ( a ) Section 1036 permits the exchange, without the recognition of gain or loss, of common stock for common stock, or of preferred stock for preferred stock, in the same corporation. Section 1036 applies even though voting stock is exchanged for nonvoting stock or nonvoting stock is exchanged for voting stock. It is not limited to an exchange between two individual stockholders; it includes a transaction between a stockholder and the corporation. However, a transaction between a stockholder and the corporation may qualify not only under section 1036(a), but also under section 368(a)(1)(E) (recapitalization) or section 305(a) (distribution of stock and stock rights). The provisions of section 1036(a) do not apply if stock is exchanged for bonds, or preferred stock is exchanged for common stock, or common stock is exchanged for preferred stock, or common stock in one corporation is exchanged for common stock in another corporation. See paragraph (l) of section 1301-1 for certain transactions treated as distributions under section 301. See paragraph (e)(5) of § 1.368-2 for certain transactions which result in deemed distributions under section 305(c) to which sections 305(b)(4) and 301 apply.
( b ) For rules relating to recognition of gain or loss where an exchange is not wholly in kind, see subsections (b) and (c) of section 1031. For rules relating to the basis of property acquired in an exchange described in paragraph (a) of this section, see subsection (d) of section 1031.
( c ) A transfer is not within the provisions of section 1036(a) if as part of the consideration the other party to the exchange assumes a liability of the taxpayer (or if the property transferred is subject to a liability), but the transfer, if otherwise qualified, will be within the provisions of section 1031(b).
( d ) *Nonqualified preferred stock.* See § 1.356-7(a) for the applicability of the definition of nonqualified preferred stock in section 351(g)(2) for stock issued prior to June 9, 1997, and for stock issued in transactions occurring after June 8, 1997, that are described in section 1014(f)(2) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Public Law 105-34 (111 Stat. 788, 921).
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11910, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7281, 38 FR 18540, July 12, 1973; T.D. 8904, 65 FR 58652, Oct. 2, 2000]
### John Louis Price, Plaintiff, 

### v. United Medical Center, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED**~** 

## :!I,y 1**~** 

## ?O1O Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia


# 10 0774

This matter is before the Court onthe plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed without prepayment offees. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed. The plaintiffalleges that security officers from the United Medical Center ("UMC") assaulted him and took his money while he was "strap[ped] down to [a] bed." CompI. at 1. He also alleges that a nurse at the UMC gave him an injection that caused him to fall asleep. 

### Id. He seeks the following relief: "I want the Court to arrest the officers that assaulted me and stole my money. I want the UMC charge[d] for injecting me with medicine that made me faint.
... I'm asking for 5 million dollar[s]''' 

### Id. at 1-2. Unlike state courts ofgeneraljurisdiction, federal district courts have limitedjurisdiction. A federal district court hasjurisdiction in civil actions arising underthe Constitution, laws or treaties ofthe United States. See 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1331. Here, however, the**I~omplaint** appears to arise from an alleged altercation between security personnel ofa hospital and the plaintiff, and an alleged theft ofpersonal property. These incidents do not appear to arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties ofthe United States.

### A federal district court also hasjurisdiction over civil actions in matters where the controversy exceeds $75,000 and where there is complete diversity ofcitizenship among the parties. 

### See 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1332(a). Here, the plaintiffdemands $5 million in damages, but it also appears that both the plaintiffand the defendant are citizens ofthe District ofColumbia. Therefore, complete diversity ofcitizenship among the parties is lacking. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

# ~**;6A~** Date: 

# 0,;;..( J-

# ~( ]J)( () 

### Uni eStates Distriet Judge

2