alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50304 Summary Calendar

RANDELL J. REDMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus D.J. BRZOZOWSKI, Sheriff, Individually and in his Official Capacity; GONZALES COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT; BRIGGS, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-96-CA-342-RBO

-------------------- November 5, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Randell Redmond (“Redmond”), Texas state prisoner #727110, filed a pro se lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Sheriff Donald Brzozowski, the Gonzalez County Commissioner’s Court, and Officer Ken Briggs violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge for all purposes. The magistrate judge granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed Redmond’s claims withNo. 98-50304 -2- prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). We have reviewed the briefs and the record and conclude that granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees was correct for essentially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in his comprehensive opinion. See Redmond v. Brzozowski , No. SA-96- CA-342-RBO (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 1998).
AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00505-CR

IN RE Robert MARTINEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 17, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On August 8, 2016, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order from 

this court directing the clerk of the county court and a court reporter to provide him with copies of 

transcripts of hearings held on February 4, 2014, July 8, 2014, and December 19, 2014. This court

only has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in 

the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a)-(b)(West 2004). Because Relator failed to show the requested 

writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 307125, styled State v. Robert Martinez, pending in the County Court at 

Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable John Longoria presiding.
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 212

Expressing the sense of the Senate that a commemorative postage stamp

should be issued to honor coach Paul ‘‘Bear’’ Bryant.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 10 (legislative day, MAY 2), 1994

Mr. HEFLIN (for himself, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr. GRAMM, Mr.

PRYOR, and Mr. STEVENS) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that a commemorative

postage stamp should be issued to honor coach Paul

‘‘Bear’’ Bryant.

Whereas eleven years after his death, Paul ‘‘Bear’’ Bryant

retains the record of being the most successful coach in

Division 1–A college football history;

Whereas Paul ‘‘Bear’’ Bryant’s accomplishments were a

source of great pride to the University of Alabama and

the Nation;

Whereas Paul ‘‘Bear’’ Bryant’s example has profoundly influenced many professional and collegiate coaches and players; and

Whereas Paul ‘‘Bear’’ Bryant is a modern hero and legend

in the South: Now, therefore, be it
2

•SRES 212 ATS

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee of the United States

3 Postal Service should recommend to the Postmaster Gen4 eral that a postage stamp be issued honoring coach Paul

5 ‘‘Bear’’ Bryant.

Æ
```

[115th Congress Public Law 40]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 131 STAT. 861]]

Public Law 115-40
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend certain protections 
         against prohibited personnel practices, and for other 
            purposes. <<NOTE: June 14, 2017 -  [H.R. 657]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Follow the Rules 
Act. 5 USC 101 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Follow the Rules Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITED PERSONNEL ACTION BASED ON ORDERING INDIVIDUAL 
                    TO VIOLATE RULE OR REGULATION.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 2302(b)(9) of title 5, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, rule, or regulation'' 
after ``law''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Such subparagraph is further amended by 
striking ``for''.

    Approved June 14, 2017.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 657:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115-67 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017):
            May 1, considered and passed House.
            May 25, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 104 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.104
                                            Agreed to September 29, 1995

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
  the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, 
September 29, 1995, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Friday, October 
6, 1995, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
on any day beginning with Friday, September 29, 1995, through Friday, 
October 6, 1995, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or 
his designee in accordance with this resolution, it stand recessed or 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, October 10, 1995, or until such time 
on that day as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee 
in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day 
after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
§ 1.501(c)(4)-1 Civic organizations and local associations of employees. ( a ) *Civic organizations* — ( 1 ) *In general.* A civic league or organization may be exempt as an organization described in section 501(c)(4) if— ( i ) It is not organized or operated for profit; and
( ii ) It is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.
( 2 ) *Promotion of social welfare* — ( i ) *In general.* An organization is operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare if it is primarily engaged in promoting in some way the common good and general welfare of the people of the community. An organization embraced within this section is one which is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements. A *social welfare* organization will qualify for exemption as a charitable organization if it falls within the definition of *charitable* set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of § 1.501(c)(3)-1 and is not an *action* organization as set forth in paragraph (c)(3) of § 1.501(c)(3)-1.
( ii ) *Political or social activities.* The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Nor is an organization operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure, or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations which are operated for profit. See, however, section 501(c)(6) and § 1.501(c)(6)-1, relating to business leagues and similar organizations. A social welfare organization that is not, at any time after October 4, 1976, exempt from taxation as an organization described in section 501(c)(3) may qualify under section 501(c)(4) even though it is an *action* organization described in § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii) or (iv), if it otherwise qualifies under this section. For rules relating to an organization that is, after October 4, 1976, exempt from taxation as an organization described in section 501(c)(3), see section 504 and § 1.504-1.
( b ) *Local associations of employees.* Local associations of employees described in section 501(c)(4) are expressly entitled to exemption under section 501(a). As conditions to exemption, it is required ( 1 ) that the membership of such an association be limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and
( 2 ) that the net earnings of the association be devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes. The word *local* is defined in paragraph (b) of § 1.501(c)(12)-1. See paragraph (d) (2) and (3) of § 1.501(c)(3)-1 with reference to the meaning of *charitable* and *educational* as used in this section.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11737, Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 31, 1960, as amended by T.D. 8308, 55 FR 35588, Aug. 31, 1990]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

#### § 1.404(k)-1T Questions and answers relating to the deductibility of certain dividend distributions. (Temporary)

Q-1: What does section 404(k) provide?

A-1: Section 404(k) allows a corporation a deduction for dividends actually paid in accordance with section 404(k)(2) with respect to stock of such corporation held by an employee stock ownership plan (as defined in section 4975(e)(7)) maintained by the corporation (or by any other corporation that is a member of a “controlled group of corporations” within the meaning of section 409(l)(4) that includes the corporation), but only if such dividends may be immediately distributed under the terms of the plan and all of the applicable qualification and distribution rules. The deduction is allowed under section 404(k) for the taxable year of the corporation during which the dividends are received by the participants.

Q-2: Is the deductibility of dividends paid to plan participants under section 404(k) affected by a plan provision which permits participants to elect to receive or not receive payment of dividends?

A-2: No. Dividends actually paid in cash to plan participants in accordance with section 404(k) are deductible under section 404(k) despite such an election provision.

Q-3: Are dividends paid in cash directly to plan participants by the corporation and dividends paid to the plan and then distributed in cash to plan participants under section 404(k) treated as distributions under the plan holding stock to which the dividends relate for purposes of sections 72, 401 and 402?

A-3: Generally, yes. However, a deductible dividend under section 404(k) is treated for purposes of section 72 as paid under a contract separate from any other contract that is part of the plan. Thus, a deductible dividend is treated as a plan distribution and as paid under a separate contract providing only for payment of deductible dividends. Therefore, a deductible dividend under section 404(k) is a taxable plan distribution even though an employee has unrecovered employee contributions or basis in the plan.

[T.D. 8073, 51 FR 4322, Feb. 4, 1986]
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 10.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-71444 and 333-83046 of W.P. Stewart & Co., Ltd. on Form S-8 of our report
dated February 28, 2003 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of W.P.
Stewart & Co., Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                          /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                          New York, NY

                                          March 28, 2003





                                      E-3
#### § 1.665(g)-1A [Reserved]
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

-------------------------------------------------------------------X

In re the Complaint of 

PENSACOLA AVIATION CENTER, LLC

Complainant,

-against- Docket No. 16-12-12

PENSACOLA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 

A DIVISION OF THE CITY OF PENSACOLA

Respondent.

Pursuant to Part 16 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

---------------------------------------------------------------------X

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

COMES NOW THE COMPLAINANT, PENSACOLA AVIATION CENTER, LLC

pursuant to CFR §16.11, and requests an extension of time to January 14, 2013 within which to 

file its responsive reply to the Respondent’s Answer and its opposition to Respondent’s Motion 

to Dismiss in this proceeding.

In support thereof, Complainant states as follows:

1. The Complaint in this proceeding was docketed on or about September 18, 2012.

2. Complainant served the Complaint on October 9, 2012 (which Respondent 

received on October 15, 2012).

3. Respondent served its Answer on or about November 28, 2012.

4. By an initial agreement of the parties, the deadline for a responsive reply and 

opposition to any motion to dismiss was extended to January 14, 2013.
5. Upon thorough review of the Respondent’s Answer and Motion to Dismiss, 

Complainant has determined that it requires an extension of time in which to reply to the Answer 

and respond to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.

6. The FAA may authorize an extension of time pursuant to 14 CFR §16.11(a).

WHEREFORE, Complainant requests an extension of time up to and including January 

14, 2013, within which to file its responsive reply and opposition to Respondent’s Motion to 

Dismiss.

Dated: Jericho, New York

December 27, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Leonard D. Kirsch

Leonard D. Kirsch

McBreen & Kopko

500 North Broadway, Suite 129

Jericho, New York 11753

(516) 364-1095

lkirsch@mklawnyc.com

Counsel to Complainant, Pensacola 

Aviation Center, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 27, 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME was served by Federal Express Next Day Mail and 

electronic mail upon the following:

Eric T. Smith, Esq.

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP

Fifth Avenue Place

120 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3001

esmith@schnader.com

/s/ Leonard D. Kirsch

Leonard D. Kirsch

Counsel to Complainant, Pensacola 

Aviation Center, LLC
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1763

OTIS O. EDWARDS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

THE ATLANTIC GROUP, INCORPORATED, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:07-cv-00433-RAJ-TEM) 

Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Otis O. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Robinson Burtch, 

LITTLER MENDELSON, PC, McLean, Virginia; Kimberly Jeanne Gost, 

LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Otis O. Edwards appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Edwards v. The Atlantic Group, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00433-RAJ-TEM 

(E.D. Va. June 23, 2008). 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

 *** The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge

for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LI LU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-74990

Agency No. A097-361-215

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 7, 2010** 

Pasadena, California

Before: TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, Senior

District Judge.*** 

Li Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

FILED

DEC 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s adverse credibility finding and will uphold the determination “unless the

evidence compels a contrary result.” Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.

2007). “We independently evaluate each ground cited by the IJ for his adverse

credibility findings. So long as one of the identified grounds is supported by

substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claim of persecution, we are

bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d

1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks

omitted).

We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination with

respect to Lu’s meeting with Xu Ping and her subsequent involvement with Xu

Ping’s Christian home church. Lu’s testimony was marred by inconsistencies with

her written application for asylum and by Lu’s implausible statement that Xu Ping

perceived (1) something wrong “inside her heart,” and (2) that Lu was in a “foul

mood,” even though she told Xu Ping she was “fine.” Because this episode was

intended to explain her introduction to the church, Lu’s answers and unsatisfactory
3

explanations go to the heart of her claim that she was a victim of persecution on

account of her religion.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 1.6001-1 Records. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any person subject to tax under subtitle A of the Code (including a qualified State individual income tax which is treated pursuant to section 6361(a) as if it were imposed by chapter 1 of subtitle A), or any person required to file a return of information with respect to income, shall keep such permanent books of account or records, including inventories, as are sufficient to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits, or other matters required to be shown by such person in any return of such tax or information.
( b ) *Farmers and wage-earners.* Individuals deriving gross income from the business of farming, and individuals whose gross income includes salaries, wages, or similar compensation for personal services rendered, are required with respect to such income to keep such records as will enable the district director to determine the correct amount of income subject to the tax. It is not necessary, however, that with respect to such income individuals keep the books of account or records required by paragraph (a) of this section. For rules with respect to the records to be kept in substantiation of traveling and other business expenses of employees, see § 1.162-17.
( c ) *Exempt organizations.* In addition to such permanent books and records as are required by paragraph (a) of this section with respect to the tax imposed by section 511 on unrelated business income of certain exempt organizations, every organization exempt from tax under section 501(a) shall keep such permanent books of account or records, including inventories, as are sufficient to show specifically the items of gross income, receipts and disbursements. Such organizations shall also keep such books and records as are required to substantiate the information required by section 6033. See section 6033 and §§ 1.6033-1 through 1.6033-3.
( d ) *Notice by district director requiring returns statements, or the keeping of records.* The district director may require any person, by notice served upon him, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such specific records as will enable the district director to determine whether or not such person is liable for tax under subtitle A of the Code, including qualified State individual income taxes, which are treated pursuant to section 6361(a) as if they were imposed by chapter 1 of subtitle A.
( e ) *Retention of records.* The books or records required by this section shall be kept at all times available for inspection by authorized internal revenue officers or employees, and shall be retained so long as the contents thereof may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12108, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7122, 36 FR 11025, June 8, 1971; T.D. 7577, 43 FR 59357, Dec. 20, 1978; T.D. 8308, 55 FR 35593, Aug. 31, 1990]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

I n the Matter Of

ALICE ANNE PELL E GRINO :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 2 409 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

N o. 1 30 DB 2017

Attorney Registration No. 674 89

( Delaware County )

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18 th day of Ma y , 2018, on certification by the Disciplinary Board

that Alice Anne Pellegrino , who was suspended for a period of six months , has filed a

verified statement showing compliance with the Order of Suspension and Pa.R.D.E.

217, and there being no other outstand ing order of suspension or disbarment, Alice

Anne Pellegrino shall be returned to administrative suspension

.