alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MELVIN M. MARINKOVIC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 1:12cv139

) Electronic Filing

MAYOR JOSEPH SINNOT, in his individual )

and official capacity, CITY OF ERIE, )

COUNTY OF ERIE, and )

THOMAS C. ROBIE, in his individual )

and official capacity, )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2016, upon due consideration of plaintiff's motion for 

copies of docket sheet and prior orders pursuant to in forma pauperis status, IT IS ORDERED 

that [25] the motion be, and the same hereby is, denied. 

Plaintiff was granted in forma puaperis status on January 4, 2013. But in some 

jurisdictions the granting of in forma pauperis status does not exempt the plaintiff from bearing 

the costs of litigation other than the payment of the filing fee. This jurisdiction is one of those 

jurisdictions. See Porter v. Dept. of Treasury, 564 F.3d 176, 179 n.3 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We note 

that the granting of IFP status exempts litigants from filing fees only."). Thus, the court is 

without statutory authority to provide plaintiff with copies of the docket sheet or any other 

submissions or entries at taxpayer expense. 

 

s/ David Stewart Cercone 

David Stewart Cercone

United States District Judge

Case 1:12-cv-00139-DSC Document 28 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2

cc: Melvin M. Marinkovic

3900 Dawnshire Drive

Parma, OH 44134

(Via CM/ECF United States Mail)

Caroline Liebenguth, Esquire

(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)

Case 1:12-cv-00139-DSC Document 28 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2
#### Frank SEGRAVE, Appellee, v. HABIRSHAW CABLE & WIRE CORPORATION, Appellant. National Surety Corporation, Appellant.

No. 162.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 4, 1937.

Kirlin, Campbell, Hiclcox, Keating & McGrann and Gleason, McLanahan, Merritt & Ingraham, all of New York City (Edward Sere Murphy and A. V. Cherbonnier, both of New York City, of counsel), -for appellants.

Lynch, Hagen & Atkins, of New York City (Henry C. Eideribach, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard J. Westin, Chief Executive Officer of Agemark Corporation (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

         (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which
         this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully
         complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Registrant.

Dated: May 13, 2003                                      /s/  RICHARD J. WESTIN
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Richard J. Westin
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
#### L. S. BROADUS v. Leah Lundy LOTT, Administratrix of Estate of Archie A. Lott.

No. 49662.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 16, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1978.

Albert Sidney Johnston, Jr., Biloxi, for appellant.

Roy B. Strickland, Gulfport, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Harrison County; Frank W. Alexander, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3200 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3200

    To reauthorize the loan repayment program for the substance use 
                     disorder treatment workforce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2023

  Ms. Hassan (for herself and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To reauthorize the loan repayment program for the substance use 
                     disorder treatment workforce.

    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 ``Substance Use Disorder Treatment and 
Recovery Loan Repayment Program Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER TREATMENT 
              WORKFORCE.

    Section 781 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295h) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Tax liability.--The amount of a payment made under 
        this section on behalf of an individual shall not be considered 
        income for any purpose under the Internal Revenue Code of 
        1986.''; and
            (2) in subsection (j), by striking ``$25,000,000 for each 
        of fiscal years 2019 through 2023'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 
        for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2028''.
                                 <all>
```
**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)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Audible Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Donald R. Katz, Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
      and belief:




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 of the Company at the end of the
                period
                covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company
                for the
                period covered by the Report.













By:
            /s/
                Donald R. KatzName:
            Donald R. KatzTitle:
            Chief Executive OfficerDate:
            November 7, 2005
















The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of this Report or
      as a
      separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement
      required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
      by
      the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

To the Board of Directors ofMTM Technologies, Inc.
 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Registration Statements and related Prospectus of MTM Technologies, Inc. listed below, and to the incorporation by reference therein of our report, dated June 27, 2007, with respect to the audited consolidated balance sheets of MTM Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended March 31, 2007.

 

Registration Statements:

 

(1)  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-136058)

(2)  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-140357)

(3)  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-131089)

(4)  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-128434)

(5)  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-127587)

(6)  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-123144)

(7)  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-117549)

(8)  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333- 49718)

(9)  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-126322)

(10) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-123147)

(11) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333- 72269)

 

 

 

/s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP

GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP

New York, New York

 

June 29, 2007
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3195 

To designate the General George C. Marshall House, in the Commonwealth 

of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. KAINE (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the General George C. Marshall House, in 

the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of 

the National Park System, 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. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GENERAL GEORGE C. 

4 MARSHALL HOUSE AS AN AFFILIATED AREA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The General George C. Marshall 

6 House, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, is established 

7 as an affiliated area of the National Park System to pro8 mote public appreciation of the significant historic conVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:55 Nov 02, 2023 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3195.IS S3195

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3195 IS

1 tributions made by United States military leader and 

2 statesman George Catlett Marshall, Jr. 

3 (b) DESCRIPTION OF AFFILIATED AREA.—The affili4 ated area shall consist of the area generally depicted as 

5 the ‘‘General George C. Marshall House Property, Lees6 burg, Virginia’’ on the map titled ‘‘General George C. 

7 Marshall House, Proposed Affiliated Area’’, numbered 

8 999/189,974, and dated September 2023. 

9 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—The affiliated area shall be 

10 managed in a manner consistent with— 

11 (1) this section; and 

12 (2) any law generally applicable to units of the 

13 National Park System. 

14 (d) MANAGEMENT ENTITY.—The George C. Marshall 

15 International Center shall be the management entity for 

16 the affiliated area. 

17 (e) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary of 

18 the Interior (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) 

19 may provide technical assistance and enter into coopera20 tive agreements with the management entity for the pur21 pose of providing financial assistance for the marketing, 

22 marking, interpretation, and preservation of the affiliated 

23 area. 

24 (f) LIMITED ROLE OF THE SECRETARY.—Nothing in 

25 this section authorizes the Secretary to acquire property 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 3195 IS

1 at the affiliated area or to assume overall financial respon2 sibility for the operation, maintenance, or management of 

3 the affiliated area. 

4 (g) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—Not later than 3 years 

5 after the date on which funds are made available to carry 

6 out this subsection, the Secretary, in consultation with the 

7 management entity, shall complete a management plan for 

8 the affiliated area in accordance with section 100502 of 

9 title 54, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 23

- 2145

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

James Ferman Chatman

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

Submitted: September 1 , 2023 Filed: September 7, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER

, BENTON , and STRAS , Circu it Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

James Chatman received a 324

- month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of a child

. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b). As part of the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal. An Anders b rief suggests that the waiver-2- is invalid and the district court 1 imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the appeal waiver is enforceable

. See
United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity of an appeal waiver de novo ); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889

– 92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (explaining that a n appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls
within it s scope, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice)

. We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no
other non

- frivolou s issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83 (1988).
W e accordingly dismiss the appeal and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
MAKING OUR

ROADS SAFER

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

One 

Countermeasure 

at a Time

The FHWA has identified and is promoting widespread use of a set of 28 Proven Safety 

Countermeasures that can offer significant, measurable impacts as part of any agency’s 

data-driven, systemic approach to improving safety. These strategies are designed to 

enhance safety on all kinds of roads—from rural to urban, from high-volume freeways 

to less traveled two-lane State and county roads, from signalized crossings 

to horizontal curves, and everything in between. Each countermeasure addresses 

speed management, intersections, roadway departures, or pedestrians/ bicyclists—

along with crosscutting strategies that address all four safety focus areas.

For more information on this and other 

FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, 

please visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

provencountermeasures.

Which Proven Safety

Countermeasures 

Will You Use?
SPEED MANAGEMENT

Speed Safety 

Cameras Variable Speed Limits Appropriate Speed Limits for All Road Users

ROADWAY DEPARTURE

Wider Edge Lines Enhanced Delineation 

for Horizontal Curves

Longitudinal Rumble 

Strips and Stripes on 

Two-Lane Roads

SafetyEdgeSM

Roadside Design 

Improvements at 

Curves

Median Barriers

INTERSECTIONS

Backplates with 

Retroreflective 

Borders

Corridor Access 

Management

Dedicated Left- and 

Right-Turn Lanes at 

Intersections

Reduced Left-Turn 

Conflict Intersections Roundabouts

Systemic Application 

of Multiple Low-Cost 

Countermeasures at 

Stop-Controlled 

Intersections

Yellow Change 

Intervals

PEDESTRIANS/BICYCLES

Crosswalk Visibility 

Enhancements Bicycle Lanes

Rectangular Rapid 

Flashing Beacons 

(RRFB)

Leading Pedestrian 

Interval

Medians and Pedestrian 

Refuge Islands in Urban 

and Suburban Areas

Pedestrian Hybrid 

Beacons

Road Diets (Roadway 

Reconfiguration) Walkways

CROSSCUTTING

Pavement Friction 

Management Lighting Local Road Safety Plans

Road Safety Audit

 

 

 

OFFICE OF SAFETY

Proven Safety Countermeasures 

FHWA-SA-21-082
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1421

In Re: JIMMY LAWRENCE NANCE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(7:92-cr-00135-JCT-RSB-1)

Submitted: July 17, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Lawrence Nance, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Lawrence Nance petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order compelling the district court to address claims 

he contends were raised but not resolved in his 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2013) proceedings. We conclude that Nance is 

not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used 

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 

mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a 

clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan 

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

The relief sought by Nance is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant Nance leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

Nance’s motions for appointment of counsel and to amend the 

mandamus petition are denied. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### DEVELOPMENT BANK OF AMERICAN SAMOA, Plaintiff v. MAU MAU, JR., and TUILUAAI MAU, dba MASEFAU MART, Defendant AMERICAN SAMOA GOVERNMENT, Garnishee

High Court of American Samoa Trial Division

CA No. 46-92

October 19, 1993

KRUSE, Chief Justice.

Counsel:For Plaintiff, Marshall Ashley

For Defendant, Tautai' Aviata F. Fa'alevao

[1] Plaintiff judgment creditor seeks to hold the American Samoa Government (ASG) liable as garnishee for the full amount of its judgment, entered against the defendants, citing ASG’s failure to respond to interrogatories propounded pursuant to A.S.C.A. §§ 43.1-801 et seq. Plaintiff moves the Court to issue an order directed to ASG to show cause why it should not be held liable for the full amount of plaintiffs judgment, in the amount of $54,177.50. The application, however, is ■unsupported; it fails to show that the Governor has given his "prior approval" to the garnishment of ASG, in accordance with the mandatory requirements of § 43.1803(b). The motion is, therefore, DENIED.

It is so ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1029
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           27330
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      36764
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           46178
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             46843
<LOANS>                                         370934
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  517772
<DEPOSITS>                                      318508
<SHORT-TERM>                                     34250
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              14998
<LONG-TERM>                                      75100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                       74871
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  517772
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  31392
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 6138
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   409
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 37939
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               15061
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               21292
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            16647
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      950
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  99
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   9843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8864
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        8864
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5844
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.41
<LOANS-NON>                                       1225
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1405
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      224
<RECOVERIES>                                        17
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3567
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           3567
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6725

ROYMAD SHAQUIL MCDANIEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JACOB SCOTT SAXON; K-9 MAGNUM; RICHARD A. FINCH, JR.; 

ANDERSON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01939-RMG)

Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roymad Shaquil McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Todd Coffee, LOGAN, JOLLY & 

SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina; Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, 

PATRICK, POSTON, HEMPHILL & ROPER, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roymad Shaquil McDaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. 

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely 

filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

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

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on December 2, 2019. McDaniel filed the notice 

of appeal, at the earliest, on February 20, 2020. Because McDaniel failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the 

appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED