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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6104

PETER DUDLEY ALBERTSEN, II,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VANESSA P. ADAMS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (2:04-cv-00685-WDK)

Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter Dudley Albertsen, II, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan

Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
1There is no evidence in the record Albertsen informed the

court of his change of address until he filed his notice of appeal.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Peter Dudley Albertsen, II, appeals a district court

final order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition.

The magistrate judge recommended relief be denied and advised

Albertsen that failure to file timely objections to the report

could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon

the recommendation. Despite this warning, Albertsen failed to file

objections.*

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation is necessary to preserve

appellate review of the substance of the recommendation when the

parties have been warned of the consequences of failing to object.

See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Albertsen waived

appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving

proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS 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 Monitronics International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael R. Meyers, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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, as amended; 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/    MICHAEL R. MEYERSMichael R. MeyersChief Financial Officer and Vice President




Date: February 8, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 30, 2020

a1027

Order 

Clerk

October 30, 2020

162130 & (4)

BRUCE MORROW,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 162130

JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The complaint for superintending control is considered, and relief is DENIED, because 

the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the requested relief.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHAD R. WHEELER,

Petitioner,

vs. Civil Action 2:10-CV-1127

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge King

WARDEN, MADISON CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

ORDER

On July 6, 2011, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that respondent’s motion to dismiss the action for failure

to exhaust state court remedies be granted. Report and

Recommendation, Doc. No. 12. Although the parties were advised of

their right to object to the Report and Recommendation and of the

consequences of their failure to do so, there has nevertheless been no

objection.

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 12, is ADOPTED and

AFFIRMED. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 9, is GRANTED.

This action is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, for

failure to exhaust state court remedies.

The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 Gregory L. Frost

 United States District Judge 

Case: 2:10-cv-01127-GLF-NMK Doc #: 14 Filed: 08/05/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### Joseph Fraley, Appellant, *v.*Samuel Starr, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Smith, P. J.
EXHIBIT 99

TXU ENERGY COMPANY LLC

CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME

(Unaudited)



|                                              |  |                                   |       |  
|--------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------- | ----- | -
|                                              |  | Twelve Months EndedMarch 31, 2007 |      
|                                              |  | (millions of dollars)             |      
|Operating revenues                            |  | $                                 | 9,107 |  
|                                              | 
|Costs and expenses:                           |  |                                   |       |  
|Fuel, purchased power costs and delivery fees |  |                                   | 4,062 |  
|Operating costs                               |  |                                   | 610   |  
|Depreciation and amortization                 |  |                                   | 328   |  
|Selling, general and administrative expenses  |  |                                   | 549   |  
|Franchise and revenue-based taxes             |  |                                   | 125   |  
|Other income                                  |  |                                   | (35   | )
|Other deductions                              |  |                                   | 215   |  
|Interest income                               |  |                                   | (248  | )
|Interest expense and related charges          |  |                                   | 365   |  
|                                              |  |                                   |       |  
|Total costs and expenses                      |  |                                   | 5,971 |  
|                                              | 
|Income before income taxes                    |  |                                   | 3,136 |  
|                                              | 
|Income tax expense                            |  |                                   | 1,080 |  
|                                              |  |                                   |       |  
|Net income                                    |  | $                                 | 2,056 |  
|                                              |  |                                   |       |
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

DIANE BUCY,

Plaintiff,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. C2-10-1050

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

LLC, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

Defendants.

Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have

been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

Decision by Court. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed March 18, 2011, JUDGMENT is hereby

entered DISMISSING this case.

Date: March 18, 2011 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-cv-01050-EAS-NMK Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/18/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case No. 6,416.

#### GILBERT v. WARD.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 171.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1831.

Slavery — Petition ron Freedom.

On a petition for freedom under a will, the burden of proof is on the respondent to show that the petitioner was more than forty-five .years of age, or that the manumission was in prejudice of creditors.

Petition for freedom [by Emanuel Gilbert, a negro], under the will of Peter Dejean.

Mr. Tabbs, for defendant

[Horatio Ward], ■objected, at the trial, that there was no evidence that the petitioner was “under the .age of forty-live years,” when his title to freedom accrued. If he was over forty-five, he is not entitled to his freedom. It is a necessary part of his title, and he must prove it. See Act Md. 1796, c. 67, § 13, by which it is enacted, “that no manumission, liere-.after to be made by will, shall be effectual to give freedom to any slave or slaves, if the same shall be in prejudice of creditors, nor unless the said slave or slaves shall be under the age of forty-five years, and able to work and gain a sufficient livelihood at the time the freedom given shall commence.”

Mr. Wallach, contra.

In the case of creditors, this court has decided that the burden of proof is on them to show that the circumstances of the estate of the deceased are such as that the manumission would be to their prejudice.

Mr. Tabbs, in reply.

The cases are different. Here the age is part of the plaintiff’s title.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,

absent) was of opinion, that under the 13th section of the act of Maryland of 1796, c. G7, the manumission is prima facie valid; and that the defect of age, which by the proviso is to render the manumission ineffectual, must be shown by the party who claims the petitioner as a slave.

Verdict for the petitioner.
EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report") andpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Tobey J. Russ, Chief Executive Officer,certify that to the best of my knowledge:

1.    Thereport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

Date:November 4, 2004

/s/ Tobey J.Russ                     Tobey J. Russ(Principal Executive Officer)

1

----
No. 38947.

#### Protests 232258-G, etc., of Guthman Solomons *&*Co. (New York).

Opinion -by

Dallingeb, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on -¡the authority of *United States*v. *Friedlaender*(21 C. C. P. A. 103, T. D. 46445), *330
      *Dow*v. *United States*(id. 282, T. D. 46816) and *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373) the atomizers and trays in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8651 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8651

To amend title 23, United States Code, to include education on trailer 
                safety in State highway safety programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2024

 Mr. Burchett (for himself and Mr. Garamendi) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, to include education on trailer 
                safety in State highway safety programs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Trailer Safety Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. TRAILER SAFETY PROGRAMS.

    Section 402(a)(2)(A)(xiv) of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting ``, prevent improper and unsafe use of light-duty 
and medium-duty trailers, and educate the public about required trailer 
safety equipment and preventive maintenance'' after ``unsecured vehicle 
loads''.
                                 <all>
```
Filed 3/19/14 P. v. Gutierrez CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

JOE GUTIERREZ, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B244091 

(Super. Ct. No. MA051431) 

(Los Angeles County) 

 Joe Gutierrez appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of first 

degree burglary and receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, §§ 459 & 496.)1 Appellant 

admitted two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and 

one prior serious felony conviction. (§ 667, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him as a 

third strike offender to an aggregate term of 30 years to life in state prison. 

 On December 30, 2010, appellant and an accomplice broke into the victims' 

home and took their property. They put the property in appellant’s car and drove away. 

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's 

examination of the record, he filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
2 

 We advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally 

submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been 

received. 

 We have reviewed the available record, including sealed documents 

presented during proceedings conducted pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 

Cal.3d 531. We are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his 

responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125, 126.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 PERREN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P. J. 

 YEGAN, J. 
3 

John Murphy, Judge 

Superior Court County of Los Angeles 

______________________________ 

 Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before the First Division,

November 27, 1951

No. 56061.

protest 143016-K (St. Louis).

#### Traders International Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 1 | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2010-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 2 | Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 3 | Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 4 | Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and |

|   |
|---|
|   |  |
| 5 | All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. |

|                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                               |  |
| /s/ Ryan C. Farris                                            |   |
|                                                          |
| Ryan C. Farris                                                |
| President, Ally Auto Assets LLC, as Depositor                 |
| (Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) |
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8753 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate single, unique ZIP 

Codes for certain communities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2024 

Ms. BOEBERT (for herself, Mr. GRIFFITH, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. 

STEIL, and Mr. LALOTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate single, unique ZIP Codes for certain communities, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODES FOR CERTAIN 

4 COMMUNITIES. 

5 Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall des7 ignate a single, unique ZIP Code for each of the following 

8 communities: 

9 (1) Eastvale, California. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8753 IH

1 (2) Castle Pines, Colorado. 

2 (3) Centennial, Colorado. 

3 (4) Lone Tree, Colorado. 

4 (5) Silver Cliff, Colorado. 

5 (6) Superior, Colorado. 

6 (7) Goose Creek, Connecticut. 

7 (8) Scotland, Connecticut. 

8 (9) Estero, Florida. 

9 (10) Ft. Myers, Florida. 

10 (11) Hollywood, Florida. 

11 (12) Miami Lakes, Florida. 

12 (13) Ocoee, Florida. 

13 (14) Oakland Park, Florida. 

14 (15) The Villages, Florida. 

15 (16) Burr Ridge, Illinois. 

16 (17) Urbandale, Iowa. 

17 (18) Carmel, Indiana. 

18 (19) Swanzey, New Hampshire. 

19 (20) Kinnelon, New Jersey. 

20 (21) Flanders, New York. 

21 (22) Glendale, New York. 

22 (23) Riverside, New York. 

23 (24) Northampton, New York. 

24 (25) Sargent, Texas. 

25 (26) Fairlawn, Virginia. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8753 IH

1 (27) Caledonia, Wisconsin. 

2 (28) Franklin, Wisconsin. 

3 (29) Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin. 

4 (30) Somers, Wisconsin. 

5 (31) Mills, Wyoming. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
(Reap. Dec. 93021)

#### F. L. Kraemer & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 14822-1/2, etc.

(Decided January 26, 1959)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain flashguns.

By stipulation of the parties, it has been agreed that items of merchandise similar to those identified on the invoices covered by said appeals with the letter “A” and initials “JWM” of former Examiner J. W. Molay, were freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany, in *452the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, at a price of DM 169, less *33%*per centum. It was further stipulated and agreed that such merchandise was not offered for home consumption in Germany, nor was such or similar merchandise offered for exportation to the United States, at a higher price.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue, and that said value is DM 169, less *33%*per centum. As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Case No. 7,973.

#### LADD v. PATTEN.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 263.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1805.

Tender — Production op Moxet — Offek to Pat.

Upon a plea of tender, it is not sufficient to prove that the defendant asked the plaintiff if he would take the money, and said he was ready to pay it, and would give his check for it.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

permitted the defendant to file the plea of tender as to the quantum valebant; general replication and issue. The evidence of the tender was, that the defendant asked the plaintiff if he would take the money, and said he was ready to pay it, and would give a cheek for it. The plaintiff refused.

THE COURT instructed the jury that the defendant must prove that he produced and offered the money to the plaintiff.