alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6163

HENRY CLIFFORD BYRD, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY MILLER, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-00201-FWB) Submitted: July 25, 2006 Decided: August 1, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Henry Clifford Byrd, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is 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 that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Byrd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
-cr-06236-WPD Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2000 P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81294-CIV-CANNON

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. 

_________________________________/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Mark R. Caramanica of Thomas & LoCicero PL hereby gives notice of his appearance as 

counsel on behalf of proposed intervenors The New York Times Company, CBS Broadcasting 

Inc., and Times Publishing Company. The certificate of service for all pleadings, orders, and other 

papers in this action should include Mark R. Caramanica at Thomas & LoCicero PL, 601 S. 

Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33606 (mcaramanica@tlolawfirm.com; dlake@tlolawfirm.com). 

Dated: August 31, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS & LOCICERO PL

/s/ Mark R. Caramanica

Mark R. Caramanica (FBN 110581)

601 South Boulevard

Tampa, FL 33606

Telephone: (813) 984-3060

Facsimile: (813) 984-3070

mcaramanica@tlolawfirm.com

dlake@tlolawfirm.com

Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors The New

York Times Company, CBS Broadcasting Inc., and 

Times Publishing Company

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of August, 2022, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all parties and counsel of record via transmission of Notices 

of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel 

or parties who are not authorized to receive electronic Notices of Electronic Filing. 

/s/ Mark R. Caramanica

Mark R. Caramanica

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 2 of 2
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 720 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2008 

Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mr. CASEY, and Mr. SPECTER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer 

Awareness Month. 

Whereas approximately 37,680 people will be diagnosed with 

pancreatic cancer this year in the United States; 

Whereas pancreatic cancer is the 4th most common cause of 

cancer death in the United States; 

Whereas Randolph (‘‘Randy’’) Frederick Pausch, who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2006, delivered his 

‘‘Last Lecture’’ on September 18, 2007, which gave a 

voice to victims of pancreatic cancer, and inspired people 

to live life to the fullest; 

Whereas the lecture by and advocacy of Randy Pausch have 

brought, and will continue to bring, renewed advocacy 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 720 IS 

and commitment to the field of pancreatic cancer research and treatment; 

Whereas the lecture by and advocacy of Randy Pausch have 

touched countless people throughout the United States 

and the world and encouraged them to change their lives 

for the better; 

Whereas 75 percent of pancreatic cancer patients die within 

the first year of their diagnosis and only 5 percent survive more than 5 years, making pancreatic cancer the 

deadliest of any cancer; 

Whereas there has been no significant improvement in survival rates in the last 30 years and pancreatic cancer research is still in the earliest scientific stages; 

Whereas there are no early detection methods and minimal 

treatment options for pancreatic cancer; 

Whereas when symptoms of pancreatic cancer present themselves, it is generally too late for an optimistic prognosis, 

and the average survival rate of those diagnosed with metastasis of the disease is only 3 to 6 months; 

Whereas the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is 40 to 50 

percent higher in African-Americans than in other ethnic 

groups; and 

Whereas it would be appropriate to observe November as 

Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month to educate communities across the Nation about pancreatic cancer and the 

need for research funding, early detection methods, effective treatments, and treatment programs: Now, therefore, 

be it 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 720 IS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and 

2 ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Title VII - Allotments for Vulnerable Elder Rights Protection Activities

FY 2023 Final Allocation

8/30/2023

State Ombudsman Elder Abuse Total Title VII

Alabama $331,877 $75,953 $407,830

Alaska $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

Arizona $484,808 $81,219 $566,027

Arkansas $195,166 $47,991 $243,157

California $2,244,198 $469,447 $2,713,645

Colorado $334,195 $55,889 $390,084

Connecticut $245,054 $59,701 $304,755

Delaware $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

District of Columbia $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

Florida $1,647,774 $343,068 $1,990,842

Georgia $603,711 $102,966 $706,677

Hawaii $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

Idaho $117,300 $23,579 $140,879

Illinois $792,081 $196,705 $988,786

Indiana $420,564 $97,886 $518,450

Iowa $210,324 $55,735 $266,059

Kansas $183,236 $45,685 $228,921

Kentucky $289,306 $66,366 $355,672

Louisiana $287,474 $68,282 $355,756

Maine $110,260 $23,579 $133,839

Maryland $381,794 $77,818 $459,612

Massachusetts $457,300 $109,229 $566,529

Michigan $684,914 $160,309 $845,223

Minnesota $362,279 $76,084 $438,363

Mississippi $185,555 $45,043 $230,598

Missouri $406,813 $97,307 $504,120

Montana $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

Nebraska $120,423 $29,668 $150,091

Nevada $192,699 $27,534 $220,233

New Hampshire $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

New Jersey $593,444 $143,455 $736,899

New Mexico $141,040 $26,303 $167,343

New York $1,300,576 $316,972 $1,617,548

North Carolina $669,512 $126,346 $795,858

North Dakota $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

Ohio $787,715 $196,507 $984,222

Oklahoma $241,290 $60,001 $301,291

Oregon $287,162 $56,600 $343,762

Pennsylvania $916,580 $242,108 $1,158,688

Rhode Island $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

South Carolina $356,640 $62,863 $419,503

South Dakota $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

Tennessee $443,500 $91,494 $534,994

Texas $1,487,218 $273,338 $1,760,556

Utah $147,032 $24,752 $171,784

Vermont $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

Virginia $529,805 $102,466 $632,271

Washington $470,028 $85,994 $556,022

West Virginia $134,735 $36,610 $171,345

Wisconsin $399,948 $89,998 $489,946

Wyoming $108,948 $23,579 $132,527

American Samoa $13,619 $2,948 $16,567

Guam $54,474 $11,789 $66,263

Northern Mariana Islands $13,619 $2,948 $16,567

Puerto Rico $259,661 $54,031 $313,692

Virgin Islands $54,474 $11,789 $66,263

TOTAL $21,789,605 $4,715,724 $26,505,329
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35943-35944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14213]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Arthritis Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will 
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Arthritis Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 12, 2000, 8 a.m. to 
5 p.m.
    Location: Gaithersburg Holiday Inn, Walker and Whetstone Rooms, Two 
Montgomery Village Ave., Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Kathleen R. Reedy or LaNise S. Giles, Center for 
Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-21), Food and Drug Administration, 
5600 Fishers Lane, (for express delivery, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1093) 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7001, or e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c5e49494855476c4f48495e024a484d024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d7f68686974664d6e69687f236b696c236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 
in the Washington, DC area), code 12532. Please call the Information 
Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
    Agenda: The Committee will discuss biologics license application 
(BLA) 99-1234, Remicade<SUP>TM</SUP> (infliximab, Centocor) for the 
treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, prevention of radiographic 
progression and prevention of physical disability. The Committee will 
also discuss general issues regarding claims based on radiographic data 
in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or 
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. 
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by July 6, 2000. 
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between 
approximately 11

[[Page 35944]]

a.m. and 12 noon. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. 
Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the 
contact person before July 6, 2000, and submit a brief statement of the 
general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the 
names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the 
approximate time requested to make their presentation.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 31, 2000.
Linda A. Suydam,
Senior Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 00-14213 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MIGHTON PRODUCTS LIM ITED,

Appellant

v.

VISION INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2018

- 1034

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016

- 00792.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

S COTT D ANIELS , Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adr ian, LLP, Tysons, VA, argued for appellant.

V INCENT M C G EARY , McGeary Cukor LLC, Morri stown, NJ, argued for appellee. Also represented by

M ICHAEL C UKOR

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (O’M ALLEY

, C LEVENGER

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 7, 2018 /s/Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 31.1

Section 302 Certification of Principal Executive Officer



I, Yanlin Han, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dragon Pharmaceutical Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.



|                       |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Date:  August 14, 2008 | /s/ Yanlin Han         
|                       | Yanlin Han             
|                       | Chief Executive Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 4106

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SEDRIC RASHAD MARION , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 4:16

- cr - 00073

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : September 9, 2020 Decided: September 18, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Rober t J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sedric Rashad Marion appeals his 180

- month prison sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court determined that he was an armed career criminal based on his fou r prior North Carolina felony convictions for breaking and entering. On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in holding that the offense of North Carolina breaking and entering is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). We affirm. “Whether an offense constitutes a ‘violent felony’ and thus qualifies as a predicate conviction for purposes of ACCA is a question of law that we review de novo.” United States v. Allred , 942 F.3d 641, 647 (4th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). In United States v. Mungro , we “conclude[d] that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14

- 54(a), as interpreted by the North Carolina Supreme Court, sweeps no more broadly than the generic elements of burglary” and “therefore qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense under 18 U. S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).” United States v. Mungro , 754 F.3d 267, 272 (4th Cir. 2014). In United States v. Dodge , we reaffirmed our “prior holding in Mungro that a conviction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14

- 54(a) qualifies as an ACCA predicate conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).” United States v. Dodge , 963 F.3d 379, 383

- 85 (4th Cir. 2020). We therefore conclude the district court did not err in sentencing Marion as an armed career criminal in this case.3 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

________________________

No. ACM S32452

________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Daniel S. ELMBLAD

Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________

Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Decided 7 September 2017

________________________

Military Judge: Mark F. Rosenow.

Approved sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days, forfeiture of $1,066.00 pay per month for 4 months, and reduction to E-1. 

Sentence adjudged 18 January 2017 by SpCM convened at Cannon Air 

Force Base, New Mexico. 

For Appellant: Major Rebecca J. Otey, USAF.

Before MAYBERRY, JOHNSON, and MINK, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as 

precedent under AFCCA Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

________________________

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 
United States v. Elmblad, No. ACM S32452

2

59(a) and 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(c). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.*

FOR THE COURT

KURT J. BRUBAKER

Clerk of the Court

 

* Although Appellant raises no specific assignments of error, we note the staff judge 

advocate’s recommendation (SJAR) erroneously advised the convening authority that 

the maximum sentence that could be imposed by this special court-martial included, 

inter alia, a fine in addition to forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 12 months. 

See Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 201(f)(2)(B)(i); R.C.M. 1003(b)(3); United States 

v. Books, No. ACM S32369, 2017 CCA LEXIS 226, at *7 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 31 Mar. 

2017) (unpub. op.). However, under the facts of this case we find no colorable showing 

of possible prejudice and, therefore, we affirm. See United States v. Scalo, 60 M.J. 435, 

436–37 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (citations omitted).
#### § 167.201 In the approaches to Chesapeake Bay: Precautionary area.

A precautionary area is established bounded by a circle with a two-mile radius, centered on the following geographic position:

| Latitude | Longitude |
| --- | --- |
| 36°56.13′ N | 75°57.45′ W |

[CGD 90-039, 59 FR 21937, Apr. 28, 1994, as amended by USCG-2010-0718, 75 FR 77534, Dec. 13, 2010]
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Delano A. Dobson, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Armel Solon, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Armel Solon, appellant pro se.Delano A. Dobson, respondent pro se (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Andrew Borrok, J.), entered June 29, 2017. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $543.13 and dismissed defendant's counterclaim.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover for damage to his vehicle sustained as a result of a collision with defendant's vehicle. Defendant counterclaimed, alleging that the accident was caused by plaintiff's negligence rather than her own, and that her vehicle had also sustained damage in the collision, for which she was entitled to recover. Following a nonjury trial, at which both parties testified about the occurrence of the accident, the Civil Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $543.13 and dismissed the counterclaim. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in its determination as to liability.</p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; <i>see</i> CCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126).</p><p>Here, the court implicitly found that plaintiff had provided credible testimony that it was defendant's negligence which had caused the accident. As there is no basis in the record to disturb the court's credibility determination, we find that the judgment in favor of plaintiff rendered substantial justice between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law (<i>see</i> CCA 1804, 1807).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: April 26, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
MES DE LOS ESTADOUNIDENSES

DE EDAD AVANZADA

Intégrate. No importa tu edad.

oam.acl.gov