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

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

December 14, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-14042

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-14206-CV-DLG

WILLIAM D. BROWN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

GEORGE THOMPSON, 

in his individual capacity, 

BILLY ELLERBEE, 

in his individual capacity, 

JESSE JENKINS, 

in his individual capacity, 

FRANK PRESCOTT, 

in his individual capacity, 

DR. CURTIS BOEHMER, 

in his individual capacity, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(December 14, 2005)
2

Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William D. Brown, a Florida prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his complaint

for failure to state a claim. Because Brown’s complaint states a claim for a

violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments, we reverse. 

“A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it

appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him

to relief.” Omar ex rel. Cannon v. Lindsey, 334 F.3d 1246, 1247 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Brown’s complaint alleges that several officers on the staff of the Okeechobee

Correctional Institution, where Brown was incarcerated, used excessive force

against him with malicious and sadistic intent to harm him. Brown alleges that the

officers repeatedly stunned Brown with a stun gun to prod him to obey orders,

although the officers knew that Brown was unable to comply with their orders. 

Because “under the Eighth Amendment, force is deemed legitimate in a custodial

setting [only] as long as it is applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore

discipline [and not] maliciously and sadistically to cause harm[,]” Skritch v.

Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted), Brown’s allegations of malicious use of excessive force against
3

him are sufficient to state a claim. 

The dismissal of Brown’s complaint for failure to state a claim is 

REVERSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5331 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5331

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 4 (legislative day September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., to establish a 
    memorial and gardens on Department of the Interior lands in the 
  District of Columbia or its environs in honor and commemoration of 
                          Frederick Douglass.

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

SECTION 1. MEMORIAL AND GARDENS TO HONOR AND COMMEMORATE FREDERICK 
              DOUGLASS.

    (a) Memorial and Gardens Authorized.--The Frederick Douglass 
Gardens, Inc., is authorized to establish a memorial and gardens on 
lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
Interior in the District of Columbia or its environs in honor and 
commemoration of Frederick Douglass.
    (b) Compliance With Standards for Commemorative Works.--The 
establishment of the Frederick Douglass memorial and gardens shall be 
in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1001 et 
seq.).
    (c) Payment of Expenses.--The Frederick Douglass Gardens, Inc., 
shall be solely responsible for acceptance of contributions for, and 
payment of the expenses of, the establishment of the memorial and 
gardens. No Federal funds may be used to pay any expense of the 
establishment of the memorial and gardens.
    (d) Deposit of Excess Funds.--If, upon payment of all expenses of 
the establishment of the memorial and gardens (including the 
maintenance and preservation amount required under section 8(b) of the 
Commemorative Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)), or upon expiration of the 
authority for the memorial and gardens under section 10(b) of such Act 
(40 U.S.C. 1010(b)), there remains a balance of funds received for the 
establishment of the memorial and gardens, Frederick Douglass Gardens, 
Inc., shall transmit the amount of the balance to the Secretary of the 
Treasury for deposit in the account provided for in section 8(b)(1) of 
such Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b)(1)).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 3, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 385.29 Other project documents. ( a ) As appropriate, the Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal sponsor may prepare design documents to provide additional design information needed for projects. Such documents shall be approved in accordance with applicable policies of the Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal sponsor.
( b ) The Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal sponsor shall prepare plans and specifications necessary for construction of projects. Such documents shall be approved in accordance with applicable policies of the Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal sponsor.
( c ) The Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal sponsor may prepare other documents as appropriate during the real estate acquisition and construction phases for projects. Such documents shall be approved in accordance with applicable policies of the Corps of Engineers and the non-Federal sponsor.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXCEPTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          38,930
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,779
<INVENTORY>                                     41,425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,540
<PP&E>                                          92,321
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 359,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,613
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,624
<COMMON>                                         1,034
<OTHER-SE>                                    (51,517)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   359,536
<SALES>                                        149,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,233
<CGS>                                           87,629
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  225,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,348
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,343)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       478
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,821)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,821)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.55)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 00-33]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Pub.L. 104-164 dated July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 00-33 with attached transmittal, policy justification and Section 620(C)(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

Dated: June 9, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 37527)          ( print page 37528)          ( print page 37529)          ( print page 37530)    

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M

[FR Doc. 00-15082  Filed 6-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-C
#### PATRICK W. BRADLEY, Appellant, *v.*JAMES M. COLE and JOHN D. COLE, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant entered upon the report of a referee.

In the latter part of 1813, the defendants, who were partners in the business of wagon making, at Phelps, in the county of Ontario, agreed with F. Baker *&*Co., who were at the same time engaged in the sale of groceries, at the same place, to make, from materials furnished by themselves, a democrat wagon, for the price of $125, to be paid for out of the store of Baker *&*Co.

Before the wagon was finished, Baker & Co., being about to dissolve their partnership, requested defendants not to complete the wagon, and release them from the agreement to pay for it. The defendants declined to do so, as it would leave on their hands an 'unsalable article; and, after some negotiation, it was agreed that defendants should complete the wagon, and, when done, sell it, and if it brought less than the contract-price Baker *&*Co. would pay the deficiency. Baker & Co. paid defendants the price agreed upon for their wagon.

Before it was completed, Baker & Co.' sold the wagon to the plaintiff, and took his note in payment therefor; and gave an order on defendants, directing them to deliver the wagon to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff presented the order to defendants, and they refused to deliver it until a debt due from one of the firm of' Baker & Co. to one of the defendants was paid.

When the order was presented, a small amount of work was required to be done, in order to complete the wagon. The shafts were made, but not affixed to the wagon ; and the wheels were not put upon the axles.

Before these things were done, proceedings were taken to replevy the wagon, and the sheriff, by virtue thereof, seized said wagon, and delivered it to the plaintiff.

When the action was commenced all the parts of the wagon were in defendant’s shop.

*661The General Term *held,*that as the defendants did not pnt their refusal to deliver the wagon to the plaintiff on the ground that' they had not completed the wagon, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession until delivery, but on the specific ground that they would not deliver unitil a debt due by the firm of Baker- *&*Go. to one of the defendants was paid, they waived all other grounds, and could not be allowed to- abandon it and insist upon non-delivery as a defense.

*JE. W. Gardner,*for appellant. *D. Stephenson,*for respondents.

Opinion by

Mullin, P. J.

Present — Mullin, P. J., Smith and Gilbert, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted before another referee, costs to abide the event.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Denver B. Cashatt, Chief Executive Officer of International Star, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
International Star, Inc., for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in
this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of International Star, Inc.


By:  /s/ Denver B. Cashatt
     -----------------------------
Name:  Denver B. Cashatt
Title: President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

Date: April 14, 2006


                                       45
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7204

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONNA MILLWOOD ROBERTS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(7:09-cr-00654-HFF-2; 7:10-cv-70297-HFF)

Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donna Millwood Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob 

Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donna Millwood Roberts seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2011) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a 

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty 

days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket 

on June 21, 2011. The notice of appeal was filed, at the 

earliest, on August 30, 2011.*

 *

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988). 

 Because Roberts failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening

of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5129 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5129

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified 
credit against estate and gift taxes to the equivalent of a $5,000,000 
    exclusion and to provide an inflation adjustment of such amount.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 7, 2000

 Mr. Deutsch 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 increase the unified 
credit against estate and gift taxes to the equivalent of a $5,000,000 
    exclusion and to provide an inflation adjustment of such amount.

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

SECTION 1. UNIFIED CREDIT INCREASED TO EQUIVALENT OF $5,000,000 
              EXCLUSION; INFLATION ADJUSTMENT OF UNIFIED CREDIT.

    (a) Increase in Unified Credit.--
            (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 2010 of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applicable credit 
        amount) is amended by striking all that follows ``were the 
        applicable exclusion amount'' and inserting ``. For purposes of 
        the preceding sentence, the applicable exclusion amount is 
        $5,000,000.''
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
        2057(a)(3) of such Code is amended by striking ``$625,000'' and 
        inserting ``the excess of the applicable exclusion amount 
        (determined without regard to this paragraph) over $675,000''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 2010 of such Code is amended by 
redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by inserting after 
subsection (c) the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Cost-of-Living Adjustment.--In the case of any decedent 
dying, and gift made, in a calendar year after 2001, the $5,000,000 
amount set forth in subsection (c) shall be increased by an amount 
equal to--
            ``(1) $5,000,000, multiplied by
            ``(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
        section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting 
        `calendar year 2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph 
        (B) thereof.
If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not a 
multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the nearest 
multiple of $10,000.''
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to estates of decedents dying, and gifts made, after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.4





 


EXHIBIT
A


FOURTH
ALLONGE TO REVOLVING NOTE


 


This
Fourth Allonge (“Allonge”), dated as of November 6, 2019, is to the Secured Revolving Promissory Note dated as of
December 12, 2016 in the maximum principal amount outstanding at any time of $2,100,000.00 (as amended by an Allonge dated November
13, 2017, a Second Allonge dated April 27, 2018 and a Third Allonge dated as of November 20, 2018, the “Note”) made
by Creative Realities, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Creative Realities, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Conexus World
Global, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company, and Allure Global Solutions, Inc., a Georgia corporation, jointly and severally
(each, and together herein referred to as “Maker”), payable to the order of Slipstream Communications, LLC, an Anguillan
limited liability company (the “Holder”).


 


The
Note was issued pursuant to that certain Loan and Security Agreement by and between, inter alia, Maker and the initial
Holder dated as of August 16, 2016 (as amended by the First Amendment thereto dated as of the First Amendment Effective Date,
the Second Amendment thereto dated as of the Second Amendment Effective Date, the Third Amendment thereto dated as of the Third
Amendment Effective Date, the Fourth Amendment thereto dated as of the Fourth Amendment Effective Date, the Fifth Amendment dated
as of the Fifth Amendment Effective Date, the Joinder Agreement dated as of November 20, 2018 and the Sixth Amendment dated as
of the date hereof, and as it may be further amended, restated, supplemented, modified or otherwise changed from time to time,
the “Loan Agreement”), and are subject to the terms and conditions thereof.


 


The
Note is hereby amended as follows: All references therein to the “Maturity Date” shall mean June 30, 2021.


 


Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Note, including without limitation the default and acceleration provisions thereof, remain in
full force and effect, and Makers hereby confirm their liability thereunder to Holder.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Allonge is executed and attached, or copies attached, to the Note on the date first set forth above.


 





	 	MAKERS
	 	 
	 	CREATIVE REALITIES, INC.
	 	CREATIVE REALITIES, LLC
	 	CONEXUS WORLD GLOBAL, LLC
	 	ALLURE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Richard Mills
	 	Name:	Richard Mills
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
January 17, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JAMIE ALBERTO IBARRA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 01152

- CR NO. 14

- 12

- 01153

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further orde r this decision certified below for observance.
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. 

/ 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO UNSEAL

REDACTED GLOBAL ISSUES BRIEFS FILED UNDER SEAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion to Unseal Redacted 

Global Issues Briefs Filed Under Seal (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 174]. The Motion seeks to unseal 

redacted versions of memoranda that the parties submitted on November 8, 2022, to the Special 

Master [ECF Nos. 171 and 173]. 

The Court has reviewed the Motion and is otherwise duly advised. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Motion [ECF No. 174] is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL and file on the public docket Docket Entries 171 and

173.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this __th day of November

2022. 

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 174-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 1 of 2
 

cc: counsel of record 

 _______________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 174-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2022 Page 2 of 2