alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ZOLLINO, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 03-51250, 04-50106.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 18, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Margaret M. Embry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John F. Carroll, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*391Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Zollino, federal prisoner #55356-053, appeals the denial of two post-judgment motions challenging the validity of his restitution order, his ‘Writ of Error to Correct Judgment,” and his motion to vacate the district court’s “Orders of Issuance of Writ of Garnishment, where no Restitution Order [was] Valid or Outstanding.” We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Zollino characterizes his pro se “Motion for Writ of Error,” as a writ of coram nobis and contends that jurisdiction in the district court was premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Zollino, however, is still incarcerated; therefore, he was not entitled to petition the district court for a writ of coram nobis. *United States v. Hatten,*167 F.3d 884, 887 *&*n. 6 (5th Cir.1999). Zollino’s pro se motion to vacate the orders issuing writs of garnishment was a de facto attack on the criminal judgment and restitution order, and, therefore, it also lacked a jurisdictional basis. *See id.*at 886-87. Zollino’s motions were unauthorized, and, consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain them. *United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994)

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit      32.1 **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

| (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. |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                              |

|              |                                                                                   |                                                      |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                   |
|    |                                                                              |                                                 |
|         | By:                                                                          | /s/ Richard                A                Stratton |
|         | Richard                A. Stratton                                                     |
|         | Chief                  Executive Officer(Principal Executive                  Officer) |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darrin Henry, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 992]

—Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this Court dated November 9, 1987 *(People v Henry,*134 AD2d 370), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 3, 1985, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Sullivan, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Botulinum Toxin Potency Assay using Tissue Chips.                    

*Date:*                         November 20, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rahat (Rani) Khan, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1078, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-7319,                         *khanr2@csr.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 12, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-22858 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
III

Calendar No. 585

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 256

To refer S. 2274 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of Richard M. Barlow of

Santa Fe, New Mexico’’ to the chief judge of the United States Court

of Federal Claims for a report thereon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 8, 1998

Mr. BINGAMAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

SEPTEMBER 17, 1998

Reported by Mr. HATCH, without amendment

RESOLUTION

To refer S. 2274 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of Richard

M. Barlow of Santa Fe, New Mexico’’ to the chief judge

of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a

report thereon.

1 Resolved, That (a) S. 2274 entitled ‘‘A bill for the

2 relief of Richard M. Barlow of Santa Fe, New Mexico’’

3 now pending in the Senate, together with all the accom4 panying papers, is referred to the chief judge of the United

5 States Court of Federal Claims.
2

•SRES 256 RS

1 (b) The chief judge shall—

2 (1) proceed according to the provisions of sec3 tions 1492 and 2509 of title 28, United States Code;

4 and

5 (2) report back to the Senate, at the earliest

6 practicable date, providing—

7 (A) such findings of fact and conclusions

8 that are sufficient to inform the Congress of the

9 nature, extent, and character of the claim for

10 compensation referred to in such bill as a legal

11 or equitable claim against the United States or

12 a gratuity; and

13 (B) the amount, if any, legally or equitably

14 due from the United States to Mr. Richard M.

15 Barlow of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Calendar No. 585

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 256

RESOLUTION

To refer S. 2274 entitled ‘‘A bill for the relief of

Federal Claims for a report thereon.the chief judge of the United States Court ofRichard M. Barlow of Santa Fe, New Mexico’’ to

SEPTEMBER 17, 1998

Reported without amendment
# Official Journal C 5/10 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 5 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4910 January 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 5

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4910 January 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 005/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 005/2 | Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China | 2 |
| 2006/C 005/3 | Amendment by France of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Lorient and Lyon (1) | 4 |
| 2006/C 005/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4049 — Novartis/Chiron) (1) | 5 |
| 2006/C 005/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4080 — G+J/Sanoma/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 6 |
| 2006/C 005/6 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4073 — ConocoPhillips/LDEHG-LDRM) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 005/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 005/2

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China

2

2006/C 005/3

Amendment by France of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Lorient and Lyon (1)

4

2006/C 005/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4049 — Novartis/Chiron) (1)

5

2006/C 005/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4080 — G+J/Sanoma/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

6

2006/C 005/6

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4073 — ConocoPhillips/LDEHG-LDRM) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
SHEDRACH J. PAUL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-5735

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 26, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Jackie L. Fulford, Judge.

Michael J. Titus, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Jessica DaSilva and Trisha Meggs Pate, 

Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Case No. 8,868a.

#### McLAIN v. RUTHERFORD.

[Hempst. 47.]1

Superior Court, Territory of Arkansas.

April, 1827.

Notes — Days of Grace — Maker — Pleading at Law — Nol Pros of Count — Assessment of Damages — Sum Certain — Jury.

1. The custom of merchants as to • days of grace does not apply as between the maker and payee.

2. A plaintiff may enter a nolle prosequi to any count in his declaration.

3. When the sum is certain, or may be reduced to a certainty by computation, the intervention of a jury to assess damages is unnecessary.

Appeal from Pulaski circuit court.

[This was a suit by John McLain against Samuel M. Rutherford.]

Before JOHNSON, ESKRIDGE, and TRIMBLE, JJ.

OPINION OF

THE COURT.

Among the numerous points relied upon by the counsel to reverse the judgment of the court below, we deem it necessary only to notice two. First, it is contended that according to the custom of merchants the defendant was entitled to “days of grace,” and consequently the action was brought before the instrument, upon which it was founded, became due. We are of opinion that the custom of merchants is not applicable to this case. From an examination of the instrument upon which the action was brought, it will be seen that it is merely a simple duebill, payable to the plaintiff himself, and not to him “or order.” It is not negotiable, nor can it be transferred, unless by assignment, under the statute. But, had the note in this case been, from its phraseology, negotiable, even then, unless it had been actually transferred, the custom of merchants allowing days of grace would not apply. The custom of merchants does not apply to the immediate parties to the transaction, or, in other words, to the maker and payee. While a promissory note continues in its original form of a promise from one man to pay another, it bears no similitude to -a bill of exchange. The resemblance begins from' the first in-dorsement, and when once indorsed, the law relative to bills of exchange applies.

The second point we have thought worthy of notice is, that “the plaintiff had no right to enter a nolle prosequi on the second count, and take final judgment on the first.” We are most clearly of opinion that the plaintiff, *232in discontinuing tlie second count, acted in strict conformity with the most approved practice; the plaintiff having the undoubted right to the control of his own case. We are also of opinion that the judgment on the first count was correctly taken, the intervention of a jury being unnecessary. The rule, as established by the supreme court of the United States (Renner v. Marshall, 1 Wheat. [14 U. S.] 215), is this: Whenever an action is brought for a sum certain, or any sum that may be reduced to a certainty by computation, the intervention of a jury may be dispensed with. Judgment affirmed.
From: lhaynes10@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:12:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Leo Haynes

Mesa, AZ 85202
No. 59838.

#### Royal Bead Novelty Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 255668-K and 260087-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wtlson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chalk white stones, not faceted, similar, except for faceting, in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59105, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Garnet N. PRICE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF THE AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7810.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 27, 2001.

Michael Morchower, Morchower, Luxton & Whaley, Richmond, VA, for appellant. Kathleen B. Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Garnet N. Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Price v. Warden Augusta Corr. Ctr.,*No. CA-00-439-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 6, 2000). 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.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe Gustavo RIVERA-ZURITA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-51359.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*366Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Felipe Gustavo Rivera-Zurita raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #18238 and #18239; Mississippi Disaster Number MS-00164]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative disaster declaration of a rural area for the State of Mississippi dated 10/10/2023. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         06/14/2023 through 06/19/2023.
 DATES: Issued on 10/10/2023. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/11/2023. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/10/2024.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration of a rural area, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Leake. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.000Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
8.000Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.375
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 18238 C and for economic injury is 18239 0. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2023-22723 Filed 10-13-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-09-P