alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6971** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. JAY E. LENTZ , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:01

- cr - 00150

- TSE

- 1; 1:09

- cv - 00788

- TSE )

Submitted : December 15, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jay E. Lentz, Appellant Pro Se. Erik R. Barnett, Assistant United States Attorney, Patricia Marie Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Priya B. Viswanath, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Jay E. Lentz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The or der is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and t hat the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lentz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appea lability , deny Lentz’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional proce ss.

DISMISSED
Welcome
 Training Module Topics Below are the training topics you need to view deposits, reports and financial institutions and search adjustments in OTCnet. Click **Expand All** to view all resources for your role, or click the arrow next to a module to view the lesson(s) and resources. You can choose to view Web Based Training (WBT) modules, certificates are assigned for critical tasks and are noted by the certificate icon Certificate icon. You can also review Printable Job Aids (PJAs) and Videos that support your OTCnet user training.  Expand All
  GETTING STARTED MODULE 1: OTCNET OVERVIEW 1.1 OTCnet Overview
            PJA
            VideoOTCnet Overview
 MODULE 2: ACCESSING OTCnet Certificate icon2.1 Start and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Application
            PJA
            VideoStart and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationCertificate icon2.2 Request Your OTCnet AccessSelf-Register/Create an Account in SailPoint IIQRequest Your OTCnet Access in SailPoint IIQCertificate icon2.3 Log In to OTCnet OnlineLog In to OTCnet Online
 ADMINISTRATION/CONFIGURATION MODULE 5: VIEWING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 5.1 View a Financial Institution
            PJA
            VideoView a Financial Institution
 DEPOSIT PROCESSING MODULE 10: SEARCHING DEPOSITS Certificate icon10.1 Search for a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoSearch for a DepositDownload Search Results for a Deposit
 MODULE 11: VIEWING DEPOSITS Certificate icon11.1 View a Deposit
            PJA
            VideoView a Deposit
 MODULE 12: SEARCHING ADJUSTMENTS Certificate icon12.1 Search for and View an Adjustment
            PJA
            VideoSearch for and View an AdjustmentDownload Search Adjustment Results for a Deposit
 MODULE 17: VIEWING DEPOSIT PROCESSING AND HISTORICAL REPORTS 17.1 View a Business Report
            PJA
            VideoView Business Reports: Adjustment Activity (FI)View Business Reports: Adjustments by OTC EndpointView Business Reports: Daily Voucher ReportView Business Reports: Deposit Activity (FI)View Business Reports: Deposits by Accounting CodeView Business Reports: Deposits by OTC EndpointView Business Reports: Deposit History by StatusView Business Reports: Non-Reporting OTC EndpointsView Business Reports: Processing Options by OTC Endpoints17.3 View an Administration ReportView Administrative Reports: CIR File StatusView Administration Reports: View Vouchers CompletedView Administrative Reports: Vouchers in Progress
 Welcome
No. 52574.

protests 52395-K, etc. (Cleveland, etc.).

#### The Dean & Kite Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0407 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. KEITH WILLIAM WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 30 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 22 2021

03/22/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0407
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24(b)

                         AMERIPRISE CERTIFICATE COMPANY
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

City of Minneapolis
State of Minnesota

Each of the undersigned as an officer of Ameriprise Certificate Company, a
face-amount certificate company registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940, hereby constitutes and appoints William F. (Ted) Truscott, Scott R.
Plummer, and Christopher O. Petersen or any one of them, as his attorney-in-fact
and agent, to sign for him in his name, place and stead any and all registration
statements and amendments thereto (with all exhibits and other documents
required or desirable in connection therewith) that may be prepared from time to
time in connection with said Company's existing or future face-amount
certificate products--whether pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act
of 1933, the Investment Company Act of 1940 or otherwise--and periodic and other
reports, and amendments thereto, including those on Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and
Form 8-K, as required pursuant to provisions of applicable federal securities
laws, and any necessary or appropriate filings with states or other
jurisdictions, and grants to any or all of them the full power and authority to
do and perform each and every act required or necessary or appropriate in
connection with such signatures or filings.

Signed on this 19th day of February, 2008


/s/ Brian J. McGrane
-------------------------------------
Name: Brian J. McGrane


/s/ David K. Stewart
-------------------------------------
Name: David K. Stewart
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN MITCHELL :

v. : NO.: 02-4439

TRANS UION, LLC, ANB/BPAMOCO c/o :

CITIGROUP, FIRST USA BANK,

SOUTHTRUST BANK :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

Kindly enter the appearance of Jack Farrell, Esq. and Richard Kraemer, Esq. of Marshall,

Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, as attorneys for defendant, Southtrust Bank, in the

above-captioned matter.

MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,

COLEMAN & GOGGIN

By:_______________________________

JOHN C. FARRELL

RICHARD A. KRAEMER

Attorneys for Defendant,

Southtrust Bank

Identification Nos.: 52824-04738

1845 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: (215)575-2787/2812

Case 2:02-cv-04439-JF Document 12 Filed 09/30/2002 Page 1 of 1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1169 

CA 13-00344 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

ERICA DANIELS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRANCES A. RUMSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, 

AND BUWAYNA DANIELS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.)

 

BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE HIGGINS KANE LAW GROUP, P.C., BUFFALO (TERRENCE P. HIGGINS OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

COHEN & LOMBARDO, P.C., BUFFALO (JAMES J. NASH OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Gerald J.

Whalen, J.), entered August 22, 2012. The order, inter alia, granted

the motion of defendant BuWayna Daniels for summary judgment

dismissing the complaint and cross claims against her. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Daniels v Rumsey ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d

___ [Nov. 15, 2013]). 

Entered: November 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          32,561
<SECURITIES>                                     4,235
<RECEIVABLES>                                  623,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,820
<INVENTORY>                                    392,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,114,594
<PP&E>                                       1,757,949
<DEPRECIATION>                                 754,656
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,847,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          924,896
<BONDS>                                        568,749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,750
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,219,181
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,847,441
<SALES>                                      9,999,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,999,634
<CGS>                                        9,671,378
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,671,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               150,159
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                153,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                    58,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             95,295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21
                                                               ----------



                             List of Subsidiaries
                                     of
                    Furniture Brands International, Inc.


                                                    Jurisdiction of
       Name of Subsidiary                            Incorporation 
       ------------------                           ---------------

     Action Transport, Inc.                          Delaware

     Action Industries, Inc.                         Virginia

     Action UK, Inc.                                 Delaware

     Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc.             North Carolina

     Broyhill Transport, Inc.                        North Carolina

     Fayette Enterprises, Inc.                       Mississippi

     Gordon's, Inc.                                  Delaware

     Interco Receivables Corp.                       Delaware

     Lane Advertising, Inc.                          Virginia

     The Lane Company, Incorporated                  Virginia

     Thomasville Furniture Latin America, S.A.       Panama

     Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc.          Delaware

     Thomasville Home Furnishings, Inc.              Delaware

     Thomasville Upholstery, Inc.                    Delaware<PAGE>
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 4/7/2023 1

Challenge to Exclusion from the Ballot 

Orally Denied 

Abulafia v. Richman 

(Katherine Polk Failla, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-3547) 

Five candidates who challenged their exclusion from primary election ballots were denied immediate relief for reasons explained orally 

but not included in the publicly accessible record. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

primary election. 

Five prospective candidates and voters filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of New York on May 6, 2020, seeking reversal of what they alleged 

were excessively technical reasons for disqualification from the June 23 primary-election ballots.1

 On the following day, the plaintiffs filed a proposed order granting relief.2

 On that day, Judge Katherine Polk Failla set the case for a 

telephonic hearing at noon on May 8.3

On May 8, Judge Failla denied the plaintiffs immediate relief “[f]or the reason set forth in the oral opinion delivered by the Court this afternoon.”4

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint on May 20.5

1. Complaint, Abulafia v. Richman, No. 1:20-cv-3547 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2020), D.E. 1. 

2. Proposed Order, id. (May 7, 2020), D.E. 3, 4. 

3. Order, id. (May 7, 2020), D.E. 6. 

4. Order, id. (May 8, 2020), D.E. 10. 

5. Notice, id. (May 20, 2020), D.E. 11.
#### Hopkins *vs.*Thomas, sheriff.

Where a dispossessory warrant was sued out against certain parties, and a counter-affidavit was filed, and two of defendants each tendered bond with the same sureties, and it was shown that., while the sureties might have been sufficient for one bond, they were not for both, it was not error for the court below to refuse a *mandamus*requiring the sheriff to receive the bonds.

April 23, 1888.

*642Dispossessory warrant. Counter-affidavit. Bonds. Before Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Fulton superior court. 'October term, 1887.

Reported in the decision.

M. A. Bell and Geo. S. Thomas, for plaintiff.

J. B. Goodwin and L. Z. Rosser, for defendant.

Blandford, Justice.

DeGive *et al.*sued out a warrant *to*turn Hopkins and others out of the possession of a certain tract of land. A counter-affidavit was filed, and Hopkins and Faulkner each tendered bond, with the same sureties for each. The sheriff refused to receive the bonds, because he did not think them sufficient. Hopkins and Faulkner thereupon .applied to the judge of the superior court for a writ in the nature of a *mandamus*to compel the sheriff to receive the bonds. The court inquired into the matter and held that the bonds were insufficient. We think the court was right in so holding. He was authorized to hold as he did, under the evidence disclosed by the record. While the sureties upon Hopkins’s bond might have been sufficient, it is shown clearly enough that they were not sufficient for both; and we think the sheriff did right in refusing to take the bond, and that the court did right to discharge the rule against .him.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 47834.

Suit 4401.

#### United *States*v. *Armand Schwab & Co., Inc.*

C. D. 613 affirmed November 2, 1942. C. A. D. 218.
No. 53516.

protests 138932-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Mrs. E. P. Beck et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400' the court dismissed the protests.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DONNELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0050 DFL JFM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Facility “C” Administration of 

Department of Corrections,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed July 12, 2004, plaintiff’s amended complaint

was dismissed with leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a second

amended complaint.

The second amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the amended complaint are

proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Mike Knowles; Jim Silva;

Captain Arthur; Lieutenant Machado; and Sergeant Igoe. 

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff five USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed July 20, 2004.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Six copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed July 20,

2004. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: June 2, 2005.

12

will0050.2am

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DONNELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0050 DFL JFM P

vs.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,

Facility “C” Administration of 

Department of Corrections, NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Second Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00050-DFL -JFM Document 18 Filed 06/02/05 Page 3 of 3
As one of the very few US manufacturers of R-22, we at MDA Manufacturing, Inc support action to restore 

Production Allowance allocation to 38 percent of baseline in 2011 and apply similarly proportionate levels 

to Production Allowance allocations for the years 2012-2014. Regarding the concerns raised in the 

Interim Final Rule as published on August 5, 2011:

– Increased US production of HCFCs. While R-22 production levels are also heavily influenced by 

demands for downstream products for which R-22 is used as a chemical intermediate, and by 

availability/cost of raw materials, this potential increase in Production Allowances could result in a slight 

relative increase in US R-22 production. However since the use of any such increased production in the 

US is controlled and capped within the total allocation of Consumption Allowances, all or part of the 

increase would be counterbalanced by a decrease in R-22 importation. Globally, this could provide a 

net environmental benefit given the known/low levels of byproduct emissions caused by US production 

and by reducing need for international transportation of R-22.

– Greater US production of R-22 for export. Given the factors mentioned above plus the fact that export 

opportunities would exist in any case for R-22 used in downstream chemical processes, it is unlikely 

that this increase in Production Allowances would lead to a significant increase in R-22 exports. 

Globally, total R-22 production will be driven by market factors including demands for downstream 

chemicals plus regulated uses and constrained by availability, pricing, and allocation of raw materials 

and by opportunities for conversion of R-22 production equipment for other uses. Relative to global 

production, any impact caused by the potential increase in Production Allowances would be very small.

– Hindrance of the 2015 "next step" in HCFC phase-out plan. The availability and pricing of R-22 in the 

US for regulated uses will continue to be influenced much more heavily by Consumption Allowances. 

An increase in available Production Allowances will provide broader options for expending those 

Consumption Allowances through US Production vs. Import of the associated R-22 material. 

To summarize, we believe that this action relative to R-22 Production Allowances entails little if any risk, 

while potentially providing benefits to US manufacturers and to the global environment.
1

Section 3505(a)(2) of the PRA of 1995 provides the OMB Director authority to approve the 

streamlined clearance process proposed in this information collection plan. This information 

collection plan was originally approved by OMB in January of 1997. It streamlines the clearance 

process for all discretionary grant information collections which do not fit the generic application 

process. The streamlined clearance process continues to reduce the clearance time for the U.S. 

Department of Education's (ED's) discretionary grant information collections (that fit the 1894-

0001 process) by two months or 60days. This is desirable for two major reasons: it would allow 

ED to provide better customer service to grant applicants and help meet ED’s goal for timely

awards of discretionary grants. This document serves as the instrument placeholder.

mproved Customer Service

The time saved by a streamlined clearance process means an earlier approval of ED's 

discretionary grant application packages and "on the street" to the waiting public much sooner 

than through the current process. This translated into better customer service to our applicants 

because of the increased time to complete applications, which ranked high on their list of 

priorities. In addition, the streamlined clearance process continues to allow ED program staff 

to devote more time to the actual administration of grants, instead of having to wait for the 

completion of the lengthier clearance process.

upporting ED's Goal

Time saved in this component assists ED in meeting its goal of awarding all discretionary

grants on a timely basis. To meet this goal for each fiscal year, ED will award most of its new 

grants by May.

Therefore, ED proposes that the clearance process for discretionary grant information 

collections continues to be streamlined in the following manner: the clearance process begins 

when ED submits the collection to OMB and, simultaneously, publishes a 30-day public 

comment period notice in the Federal Register. OMB would still have 60 days, following the 

beginning of the public comment period, to reach a decision on the collection.

Under this streamlined clearance process, OMB has 60 days to review each collection and the 

public would still have an opportunity to comment on each collection once instead of twice. As 

we have learned, one public comment period is sufficient; especially, when it means saving 60 

days per clearance. This continues to help ED provide better customer service to grant 

applicants and award all discretionary grants on a timely basis.

I

S
Before the Third Division,

April 14, 1955

No. 58955.

protests 177153-K, etc. (Buffalo).

#### Swift & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.