alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Godfrey v. Moser.

*Interest —when not allowable.*

In an action by an attorney for services where the account had never been settled or balanced, *held,*that interest was not allowable. *Reed*v. *Rens. Glass Co.,*3 Cow. *393; Van Buren*v. *Van*Gaasbeck, 4 id. 496; *N. Y. & E. R. R. Co.,*20 N. Y. 463.

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

*678The action was brought by John A. Godfrey against William Moser to recover for services as attorney.

*Henry A. Gildersleve,*for appellant.

*B. W. Huntington,*for respondent.

Daniels, J.

The only point of general importance passed upon in the opinion is sufficiently stated in the head-note.

*Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.*
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1460]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION


Neighborworks[supreg] America; Regular Meeting of the Board of 
Directors; Sunshine Act

Time and Date: 2 p.m. Wednesday, March 28, 2007.

Place: 1325 G Street, NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.

Status: Open.

For Further Information Contact: Jeffrey T. Bryson, General Counsel/
Secretary, (202) 220-2372; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#375d55454e44585977594019584550"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f59f97878c869a9bb59b82db9a8792">[email protected]</span></a>.

Agenda

    I. Call to Order.
    II. Approval of the Minutes.
    III. Summary Report of the Audit Committee.
    IV. Summary Report of the Corporate Administration Committee.
    V. Summary Report of the Finance, Budget and Program Committee.
    VI. Summary Report of the Audit Committee.
    VII. Financial Report.
    VIII. Revised Delegation of Authority to CEO.
    IX. Chief Executive Officer's Quarterly Management Report.
    X. Multifamily Initiative Presentation.
    XI. Adjournment.

Jeffrey T. Bryson,
General Counsel/Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-1460 Filed 3-21-07; 1:50 pm]
BILLING CODE 7570-02-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 130.310 Radar.

Each vessel of 100 or more gross tons must be fitted with a general marine radar in the pilothouse.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6567

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOHNNY MORAN BOONE, III , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 2:09

- cr - 00167

- RGD

- FBS

- 1 )

Submitted : November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Johnny M o ran Boone, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Johnny Moran Boone, III, appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for appointment of counsel, denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 , and denying hi s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsideration of the denial of compassionate release

. We have review ed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Boone’s motions. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021 ) (stating standard of review) , cert. deni ed , No. 21

- 5624 , 2021 WL 4733616 ( U.S. Oct. 12, 2021)

. * Acc ordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
United States v. Boone , No. 2:09

- cr - 00167

- RGD

- FBS

- 1 ( E .D. Va. Mar. 1 , 2021 ; Apr

. 1 , 2021) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* Because Boone ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition in d en ying the motion for appointment of counsel , he has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ; see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R . 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 16 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TOMI EDWARD JENNINGS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, NATRONA COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-8068 (D.C. No. 98-CV-141-B) (D. Wyo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , EBEL and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Tomi E. Jennings, Jr., appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the Seventh Judicial District C ourt in Natrona County, Wyoming. The district court dismissed his civil ri ghts complaint because1 On appeal, Jennings moves to amend his pleadings pu rsuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15(b) to include an allegation that he is i n imminent danger. We will not address this motion, as the proper forum for such a motion is the district court. Furthermore, because the question is not before us, we do not express an opinion as to whether Jennings can file the motion in the d istrict court at this time. - 2 - Jennings failed to pay the requisite filing fee. A lthough Jennings had moved to proceed in formapauperis , a magistrate judge denied the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), because the prisoner, on 3 or more occasions, while incarcerated or detained, brought an action or appeal in a U.S. Cou rt that was dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, mal icious or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the prisoner has not shown imminent danger of serious physical injury. In its order dismissing the case, the district cour t simply reiterated, without elaboration, that Jennings was “subject to the fili ng fee requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Because neither the magistrate judge nor the distri ct court specified which prior actions or appeals brought by Jennings were f rivolous, we cannot properly review the order denying IFP status or dismissing t he appeal. Consequently, we REMAND for the district court to enumerate and expl ain which prior actions or appeals formed the basis for its denial of IFP stat us. 1- 3 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
§ 98.80 General procedures and requirements. An Indian Tribe or tribal organization (as described in subpart G of these regulations) may be awarded grants to plan and carry out programs for the purpose of increasing the availability, affordability, and quality of child care and childhood development programs subject to the following conditions: ( a ) An Indian Tribe applying for or receiving CCDF funds shall be subject to the requirements under this part as specified in this section based on the size of the awarded funds. The Secretary shall establish thresholds for Tribes' total CCDF allotments pursuant to §§ 98.61(c) and 98.62(b) to be divided into three categories: ( 1 ) Large allocations;
( 2 ) Medium allocations; and
( 3 ) Small allocations.
( b ) An Indian Tribe applying for or receiving CCDF funds shall: ( 1 ) Have at least 50 children under 13 years of age (or such similar age, as determined by the Secretary from the best available data) in order to be eligible to operate a CCDF program. This limitation does not preclude an Indian Tribe with fewer than 50 children under 13 years of age from participating in a consortium that receives CCDF funds; and
( 2 ) Demonstrate its current service delivery capability, including skills, personnel, resources, community support, and other necessary components to satisfactorily carry out the proposed program.
( c ) A consortium representing more than one Indian Tribe may be eligible to receive CCDF funds on behalf of a particular Tribe if: ( 1 ) The consortium adequately demonstrates that each participating Tribe authorizes the consortium to receive CCDF funds on behalf of each Tribe or tribal organization in the consortium;
( 2 ) The consortium consists of Tribes that each meet the eligibility requirements for the CCDF program as defined in this part, or that would otherwise meet the eligibility requirements if the Tribe or tribal organization had at least 50 children under 13 years of age;
( 3 ) All the participating consortium members are in geographic proximity to one another (including operation in a multi-State area) or have an existing consortium arrangement; and
( 4 ) The consortium demonstrates that it has the managerial, technical and administrative staff with the ability to administer government funds, manage a CCDF program and comply with the provisions of the Act and of this part.
( d ) The awarding of a grant under this section shall not affect the eligibility of any Indian child to receive CCDF services provided by the State or States in which the Indian Tribe is located.
( e ) For purposes of the CCDF, the determination of the number of children in the Tribe, pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, shall include Indian children living on or near reservations, with the exception of Tribes in Alaska, California and Oklahoma.
[63 FR 39981, July 24, 1998, as amended at 81 FR 67592, Sept. 30, 2016]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case Number: 14-cr-20427-05 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

MELVIN ANDREW MORRIS, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On October 10, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a plea 

hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on October 10, 

2014, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 

ECF No. 80, is ADOPTED. 

 

1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM Doc # 96 Filed 10/31/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 607
 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement, ECF No. 79, is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Dated: October 31, 2014 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on October 31, 2014. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM Doc # 96 Filed 10/31/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 608
#### § 14.301 Paying off of merchant mariner during or after voyage upon which shipping articles are required.

Each master or individual in charge of a vessel when shipping articles are required must complete and sign, and each merchant mariner paid off during or after such a voyage must sign the articles and otherwise comply with the requirements of this subpart. When signed by the master or individual in charge and by the mariner, the articles constitute a release from the duties to which they bound their parties.

[CGD 94-004, 61 FR 56637, Nov. 4, 1996, as amended by USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 77999, Dec. 24, 2013]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0374. CHARLES BOYD et al. v. AMERICAN HOMES 4 RENT

PROPERTIES TWO, LLC.

Charles and SteffaniBoyd, through attorney GradyRoberts, seek discretionary

review of the superior court’s decision in this dispossessory proceeding.

1 The

application purports to challenge the superior court’s March 12, 2015, oral order

granting a writ of possession to the opposing party. However, oral rulings are not

subject to appellate review. See Titelman v. Stedman, 277 Ga. 460 (591 SE2d 774)

(2003) (a court’sruling is notsubject to appellate review until it isreduced to writing,

signed by the judge, and filed by the clerk).

Moreover, we have already rejected the Boyds’ attempt to obtain discretionary

review of the writ of possession in this proceeding. See Case No. A15D0063 (denied

on October 20, 2014).2 Accordingly, under the doctrine of res judicata, we lack

jurisdiction to consider the Boyds’ latest challenge to this ruling. See Stirling v.

State, 199 Ga. App. 877 (406 SE2d 282) (1991) (“It is axiomatic that the same issue

cannot be relitigated ad infinitum.”). For these reasons, the application is hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 15, this Court may penalize a party or an

1 The application was filed in the Supreme Court, which transferred the matter

here.

2

In a related application, we denied the Boyds’ request for appellate review of

the superior court’s dismissal of their notice of appeal from the re-entered writ of

possession. See Case No. A15D0232 (denied on February 17, 2015).

May 15, 2015
attorney for filing an application for discretionary appeal that is determined to be

frivolous. Because we have already rejected the Boyds’ request for discretionary

review of the writ of possession in this case, this application is frivolous. 

Accordingly, we hereby fine Grady Roberts $500 for filing the application. This

penalty is imposed against attorneyGradyRoberts, not against applicantsCharles and

Steffani Boyd. In accordance with the provisions described in Rule 15 (c), the trial

court is DIRECTED to enter this judgment in favor of American Homes 4 Rent

Properties Two, LLC, and against attorney Grady Roberts and hisfirm, Roberts Law,

LLC.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

05/15/2015
# C_2008096EN.01005501.xml

| 17.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/55

---

Corrigendum to the annotated presentation of regulated markets and national provisions implementing relevant requirements of ISD (Council Directive 93/22/EEC)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 57 of 1.3.2008
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 57 of 1.3.2008

(2008/C 96/12)

In the Contents and on page 21 in the title:

for:

‘... (Council Directive 93/22/EEC)’,

read:

‘... (Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council)’.

---
§ 113.37-10 Detailed requirements. ( a ) Each indicator must be independent of the propulsion control system. A failure of the propulsion control system must not affect the operation of the indicators.
( b ) Each electric component or its enclosure must meet Type 4 or 4X of NEMA 250 or IP 56 of IEC 60529:2013 (both incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subpart) requirements.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15272, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28290, June 4, 1996; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65202, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16369, Mar. 16, 2023]
§ 14.203 Voyages upon which shipping articles are not required. Although they may be used for the voyage; shipping articles are not required for any voyage by— ( a ) A yacht;
( b ) A vessel engaged exclusively in fishing or whaling;
( c ) A vessel aboard which the merchant mariners are by custom or agreement entitled to participate in the profits or results of a cruise or voyage;
( d ) A vessel employed exclusively in trade on the navigable rivers of the United States; or
( e ) A ferry, or a tug used in ferrying, if the vessel is employed exclusively in trade on the Great Lakes, other lakes, bays, sounds, bayous, canals, or harbors.
Exhibit 32.2



Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin M. Sharpe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 15, 2004



/s/ Kevin M. SharpeKevin M. Sharpe, Chief Financial Officer




19
Press Office ; s
* 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. =
* Phone: Local 376-3155 Toll Free 800-424-95:

JULY 14, 1986

WASHINGTON —- ‘The Federal Election Commission has released its semi-annual
count of political action committees. Increasing slightly over the number
registered at year's end, the total number of Pac's now stands at 4,092,
as of July 1, 1986.

Figures below represent PAC growth over the past twelve years.

Federal Election Comission "PAC" GROWTH — FROM 1974
Press Office
(202)376-3155
(800) 424-9530

Committee Type

Trade/ Non- Cooperative
Menbership/ | Connected

Without
Bealth

ee ee
201 318* 608
ina 724/752/ 226 357* 722.
452* . 992
12/31/76 224 489* 1,146
[12/31/77 234 438 eat) 1,360

8
12/31/78 27 453 162 Fr} 1,653
(08/00/79 483 206 B 1,840
17
B

j2/31/'79 2,000

(07/01/80 1,107
12/31/80 1,206 576 374 42 2,551
7/01/81 1,253 579 44a) 38 2,678

240
255 544 309
27
303
12/31/81 1,329 318 614 4. 2,901
350
380
379
378

2,279

[07/01/82 1,417 628 5 3,149
12/31/82 1,469 649 723 47 3,371
1077/01/83 1,514 664 740 50 3,461
iRAVes 1,538 643 793 Bl 3,525
[o7701/84 1,642 381 662 940 53 3,803
jn2731/84 1,682 394 698 1,053 52 4,009
lo77oxves 1,687 393 1,039 4 ‘4,000
[2/31/85 1,710 388 695 1,003 4 3,992
[07/01/86 1,734 386 707 1,063 6 46 4,092

On Novenber 24, 1975, the Commission issued Advisory Opinion 1975-23 "SUNPAC".
On May 11, 1976, the President signed the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendnents of 1976, P.L. 94-283.
% For the years 1974-1976, these numbers represent all other political conmittees...no further categorization is available,

Ht
#### § 2400.20 Preparation of application.

Applications, on forms mailed directly by the Foundation to those who request applications or downloaded from the Foundation's Web site, must be completed by all fellowship candidates in order that they be considered for an award.

[69 FR 11814, Mar. 12, 2004]
§ 15.905 Uninspected passenger vessels. ( a ) An individual holding a license or MMC endorsed as master or pilot of an inspected self-propelled vessel is authorized to serve as operator of an uninspected passenger vessel of less than 100 GRT within any restrictions, other than tonnage limitations, on the individual's license or MMC.
( b ) An individual holding a license or MMC endorsed as a master or pilot of an inspected self-propelled vessel is authorized to serve as master, as required by 46 CFR 15.805(a)(6), of an uninspected passenger vessel of 100 GRT or more within any restrictions, including gross tonnage and route, on the individual's license or MMC.
( c ) An individual holding a license or MMC endorsed as mate of an inspected self-propelled vessel (other than Great Lakes, inland, or river vessels of less than 200 GRT) is authorized to serve as operator of uninspected passenger vessels of less than 100 GRT within any restrictions, other than tonnage limitations, on the individual's license or MMC.
[USCG-1999-5040, 67 FR 34767, May 15, 2002, as amended by USCG-2006-24371, 74 FR 11263, Mar. 16, 2009; USCG-2004-17914, 78 FR 78010, Dec. 24, 2013]
9 0

7
2S
~

8990780

Press Office _
999 E Street, N.W., Washingtori, D. :
“Phone: ‘Local 376-3155 Toll Free 800-424:

FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY “CONTACT: = FRED EILAND
JANUARY 13, 1989 ‘> SHARON’ SNYDER

SCOTT MOXLEY..-
WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission has released its semi-
annual count of the number of PAC's registered with the agency. As.of
December 31, 1988, the total was 4,268, a net increase of 103 PACS:
since the end of 1987. A report on PAC financial activity for the
1987-88 election cycle will be issued in the near future.

PAC GOWTH — FROM 1974

Comittee Type

fon
Connected

|
tht

a

2:

1,360

1,653

BIBle

1,840

2/8) 8/ 8/8) 2/6 la

2,000

2,279

2,551

2,678

2,901

3,149

3,371

740 3,461

793 3,525

340 3,803

1,053 4,009

1,039 4,000

1,003 3,992

1,063 4,092

&/ 3/8) 218)8) 8) 2/8] 8/8) 31/212) 81/81 Glg

1,077 4,157

2

967 4,109

957 4,165

3

1,066 4,196

A Ba a ga acaba Gli

ela) e]ala]a)2|2/e]b|e] s/s |e )e) ele ie)
S/SS/BIBIS/SIBIS/BINIE/Bl sjalolaiejaiys/s

1,816 786 1,115 4,268

On November 24, 1975, the Commission issued Advisory Opinion 1975-23 “SUNPAC".
Qn May 11, 1976, the President signed the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1976, P.L. 94-283.
For the years 1974-1976, these numbers represent all other political comaittees...no further categorization is available.

Hee
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 4 , 2015

NO. 03

- 13

- 00762

- CV

Fakhrealam Atiq, Appellant

v.

CoTechno Group, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWI N, AND FIELD

REVERSED AND RENDERED ON REHEARING

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment render ed by the tr i a l court on October 23 , 2013. The

Court’s opinio n and judgment dated July 9, 2015, are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record

and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment . Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and renders j udgment

dismissing appellee’s claims against appellant for want of personal jurisdiction. A ppellee shall

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.