alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pat HUDSON and William Charles Deich, III, Appellants, v. Joseph WANICK, in his capacity as City Attorney in and for City of Miami Beach, County of Dade, State of Florida, Rocky Pomerance, in his capacity as Chief of Police, in and for City of Miami Beach, County of Dade, State of Florida, Robert Grover, Nelan Sweet and Zev Kogan, in their capacity as Judges of Municipal Court in and for City of Miami Beach, County of Dade, State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 70-1077.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 14, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No.7 Pension Plan 

Checklist Item #17 

Does the application include a list of each employer that has an obligation to contribute under the 

plan and each employee organization representing participants under the plan? See section 4.05( 4). 

Document 17.1 provides the list of each employer that has an obligation to contribute under the 

Pension Plan. Document 17.2 provides the list of employee organizations representing participants 

under the Pension Plan. 

17.1 
4.05(4) Lists of Contributing Employers and Employee Organizations 

Document 17.1 

List of Contributing Employers 

The following is the cunent list of employers that have an obligation to contribute to the 

Pension Plan based on the current colle.:ti ve bargaining agreement between the Asso<:iation of 

Union Mason Contractors and Bri.:klayers and Allied Craflworkers Local No. 7 (Akron, Ohio). 

The current collective bargaining agreement became effective on June I, 2014, so the following 

list includes employers that have made contributions to the Pension Plan since June I, 2014. 

See the following pages fbr the current list of contributing employers. 

17.2 
List of Contributing Emplovers 

(June 1, 2014- .June 20, 2016) 

I. Ameriseal and Restoration, LLC 

2. Batton Wake Enterprise, LLC 

3. Beaver Constructors. Inc. 

4. Bice Masonry 

5. Coon Caulking & Sealants, Inc. 

6. C.R. Hoilcs Masonry, Inc. 

7. Crowe CoustnJctiou, Inc. 

8. D.C. Meyer Masonry, LLC 

9. Desalvo Construction Co. 

10. ETA Development, Inc. 

I I. r abc on, J.nc. 

12. Foti ConsiTuction Co. 

13. Gabor Enterprises, Inc. 

14. Gateway Brick, LLC 

15. GEM Group 

16. George Wisch! & Sons Construction Co., Inc. 

17. Giambrone Masonry, Inc. 

I 8. Graciano Corp. 

19. Gruuwcll-Cashcro Co. 

20. International Masonry lnstimtc (L\11) 

21. J.P. Phillips, Inc. 

22. Kaplon Caulking & Building Restoration, Inc. 

17.3 
23. KC Cr.1fi, LLC 

24. Lallo :-.1asonry & Con~ rete, LI.C 

25. Leucyk Masonry Co .. Inc. 

26. L.M.R. Construction Co., Inc. 

27. Lou Ritenour Occorntors, Lnc. 

28. Medina Glass Block, IJJC. 

29. Mid State Restoration. Inc. 

30. Micncorp. Inc. 

31. Mike Coates Construction Co. 

32. Rohr Masonry, lnc. 

33. Selinsky Force, LLC 

34. Spartan Construction Co. 

35. Stanley Miller Construction Co. 

36. Stille Constmction Corp. 

37. Tervo Masonry, LLC 

38. Tbomarios Construction Group 

39. Valentine Contractors. Inc. 

40. VIP Restoration. Inc. 

4 1. Warren Guillmd Bricklayers . .Luc. 

42. Zavarclla Broth~rs Construction Co. 

17.4 
Document 17.2 

List of Employee Orgunizations 

Bricklayers and Allitlcl Cratlworkers Local Nll. 7 (Akron, Ohio) is the only employee 

organization representing participants under the Pension Plan. 

17.5
# 2019 Income by Source
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41583 

Conference Calendar

 

BENNY HAYES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES ADAMS, M.D.; ADJETEY K. LOMO, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-97-CV-403

--------------------

October 20, 1999

Before JONES, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benny Hayes, Texas inmate #825298, challenges the district

court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint. 

Hayes argues that his complaint has an arguable basis in law, and

he asserts that his allegations demonstrate deliberate

indifference by the defendants. We have carefully reviewed the

arguments and the appellate record. We conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
No. 98-41583

-2-

complaint as frivolous. See McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059,

1061 (5th Cir. 1997). The medical care alleged by Hayes does not

amount to deliberate indifference by the defendants. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321

(5th Cir. 1991). Furthermore, Hayes failed to allege more than a

mental injury. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th

Cir. 1997).

Hayes argues that the application of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) to his complaint violates the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments. The argument is not properly before

the court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339,

342 (5th Cir. 1999). Hayes’ argument concerning the lack of

opportunity to amend his complaint is without merit. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915 does not provide such a procedural safeguard. See Graves

v. Hampton, 1 F.3d 315, 318 n.12 (5th Cir. 1993).

Hayes asserts that he should have appointed counsel. To the

extent that he challenges the denial of appointed counsel in the

district court, no abuse of discretion is detected. See Jackson

v. Dallas Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). To

the extent that Hayes is requesting appointed appellate counsel,

the appeal fails to present exceptional circumstances warranting

such appointment. See id.

This appeal lacks arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as Hayes’ second
No. 98-41583

-3-

strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution Hayes

that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### William F. WERNERSBACK, Appellant, v. Caroline R. WERNERSBACK, Appellee.

No. 70-647.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Hugh MacMillan, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
6.04 Ten-year experience for certain critical assumptions. With respect to each of the 10 plan years immediately preceding the plan year in which the application is submitted, a d

PYE (1) Total contributions. (2) Total contribution base units. (3) Average contribution rates. (4) Withdrawal liability payments. 

4/30/2017 1,126,133 0.00 0 4/30/2016 3,815,488 1,087,575 3.51 0 4/30/2015 3,696,518 1,044,941 3.54 0 4/30/2014 3,620,036 1,015,775 3.56 0 4/30/2013 3,476,411 998,372 3.48 0 4/30/2012 3,262,884 1,034,107 3.16 0 4/30/2011 2,517,134 922,328 2.73 0 4/30/2010 2,732,416 1,023,122 2.67 0 4/30/2009 2,619,413 1,066,839 2.46 0 4/30/2008 1,140,517 0.00 0
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1924 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1924

    To provide first-time, low-level, nonviolent simple possession 
 offenders an opportunity to expunge that conviction after successful 
                 completion of court-imposed probation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2021

 Mr. Jeffries (for himself, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Crenshaw) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide first-time, low-level, nonviolent simple possession 
 offenders an opportunity to expunge that conviction after successful 
                 completion of court-imposed probation.

    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 ``Kenneth P. Thompson Begin Again 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATING AGE REQUIREMENT FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF CERTAIN 
              CONVICTIONS FOR SIMPLE POSSESSION OF CONTROLLED 
              SUBSTANCES BY NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS.

    Section 3607(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``and the person was less than twenty-one years old at the 
time of the offense,''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7067

WILLIAM DAWSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. BRYAN K. WELLS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. ( 5:18

- hc

- 02303

- BO )

Submitted : October 15, 2019 Decided: October 18, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

William Dawson , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Dawson seeks to appeal the distr ict court’s order d ismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 pri soner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 th at Dawson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Dawson’s motion to liberally construe his in forma pauperis application and his motion for extension of time t o file an application to proceed in forma pauperis , and 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 proces s. DISMISSED
#### Leroy ROUTH v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45654.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 19, 1970.

Garner, Whitten, May & Garner, Hernando, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Laurence Y. Mellen, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

JONES, Justice.

In the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi, appellant was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. The evidence was obtained pursuant to a defective search warrant. A motion to suppress was made and overruled. The pertinent part of the affidavit for the search warant reads as follows:

> The affiant had received information from reliable informants, who have proven to be reliable in the past because of information that they have given in the past that has been proven to be true and correct, that an illegal whiskey distillery was being concealed on the above described property and also that whiskey was being stored for the purpose of sale.

The search warrant issued pursuant thereto recites:

> This Court, having examined and considered said affidavit, and also having heard and considered evidence in support thereof from the affiants named therein does find that probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant does exist.

These are substantially the same provisions as contained in the affidavit and search warrant in O’Bean v. State, 184 So.2d 635 (Miss. 1966). They were found defective in the *O’Bean*case for the reasons therein stated.

The present case is somewhat stronger than the *0’B.ean*case insofar as the statement in the search warrant that the court had considered the evidence thereon is concerned. When the motion to suppress in the instant case came on for hearing, the state introduced the person who made the affidavit and obtained the search warrant. He testified that he merely laid the affidavit before the justice of the peace and told him that he wanted a search warrant, and the warrant was issued. He said the entire time before the justice of the peace could not have exceeded ten minutes and that there was no conversation regarding the facts upon which the affidavit was made. The testimony clearly shows that no evidence of any kind was *563taken before the justice of the peace issuing the warrant.

On the strength of *O’Bean, supra,*and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964) together with Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), we know of no course we can take except to reverse this case and discharge the appellant.

Reversed and appellant discharged.

ETHRIDGE, C. J., and BRADY, INZER, and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
*

 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-61077

Summary Calendar

 

JAGDEEP SINGH,

 

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 

Respondent.

-----------------------------------------------------

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78-177-763 

----------------------------------------------------

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jagdeep Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of

removal under both the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture

(CAT). Singh argues that the BIA erred in determining that he had not established past persecution
 

-2-

based on his religion and political opinions, a well founded fear of future persecution, or that it was

more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were returned to India. 

This court will uphold the factual findings that an alien is not eligible for asylum or

withholding ofremoval ifthose findings are supported by substantial evidence. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d

76, 78-79 (5th Cir. 1994). The substantial evidence standard requires that the decision be based on

the evidence presented and that the decision be substantially reasonable. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,

78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the

record does not compel a contrary conclusion asto either Singh’sINA claims or his CAT claim. See

id. Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED.
#### Colon BARLOW et al. v. McDONALD.

No. 38711.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 221 So.2d 434.
#### The BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. Dena H. FELLER, individually and on behalf of all other school teachers similarly situated, Respondent.

No. 39341.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 15, 1970.

Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, and Robert B. Alexander, Jr., Miami, for petitioner.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward and Irving B. Levenson, Miami Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 229 So.2d 598. That decision affirmed the award of costs against the Board of Public Instruction holding the Board liable for reasonable compensation to be paid to a court appointed examiner for his work in examining the records of the School Board. Conflict is alleged with the decision of this Court in Palethorpe v. Thomson, 171 So.2d 526 (Fal.1965), a case holding that the State or its agencies may not be held liable for costs unless expressly provided for by statute.

The District Court in affirming the costs award held that the order of the lower court entered January 30, 1968, was a final adjudication that the Board was liable for reasonable compensation to be paid to the examiner and the subsequent order of December 10, 1968, simply adjudicated the reasonable amount of that liability. The Court went on to state that the Board’s failure to attack the order of January 30, 1968, holding it liable for costs, barred the Board’s right to challenge this point on appeal. We find it unnecessary to pass on *357the correctness of the District Court’s decision on this point since the decision of this Court in Simpson v. Merrill, 234 So.2d 350, retreats from the *Palethorpe*decision and holds that under Florida Statutes § 57.041, F.S.A., the State or its agencies may be held liable for costs.

Accordingly, the decision of the District Court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.

ERVIN, Chief Justice

(concurring specially) .

I concur specially in the foregoing opinion as per my special opinion in Simpson v. Merrill, 234 So.2d 350.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, WILLIAM J. MURPHY, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of COMPUTER HORIZONS CORP.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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 quarterly report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date:                                                          | December 30, 2003 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- |  | 
|/s/ William J. MurphyWILLIAM J. MURPHY
Chief Executive Officer |                   | 

---
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1971 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance 

to the local coordinating entity for the Atchafalaya National Heritage 

Area under subtitle B of Public Law 109–338. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2021 

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. SCALISE, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, and Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 

to provide assistance to the local coordinating entity for 

the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area under subtitle 

B of Public Law 109–338. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

4 Notwithstanding section 221 of subtitle B of Public 

5 Law 109–338, the authority of the Secretary of the Inte6 rior to provide assistance to the local coordinating entity 

7 for the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area shall termiVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:09 May 12, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1971.IH H1971

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1971 IH

1 nate on the date that is 30 years after the date of the 

2 enactment of Public Law 109–338. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit (j)





            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of DWS International Fund, Inc. on Form N-1A ("Registration
Statement") of our report dated October 27, 2008 relating to the financial
statements and financial highlights which appears in the August 31, 2008 Annual
Report to Shareholders of DWS International Fund, which is also incorporated by
reference into the Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to
us under the headings "Financial Highlights", "Financial Statements" and
"Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in such Registration Statement.



/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
November 24, 2008

<PAGE>






            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of DWS International Fund, Inc. on Form N-1A ("Registration
Statement") of our report dated October 27, 2008 relating to the financial
statements and financial highlights which appears in the August 31, 2008 Annual
Report to Shareholders of DWS International Value Opportunities Fund, which is
also incorporated by reference into the Registration Statement. We also consent
to the references to us under the headings "Financial Highlights", "Financial
Statements" and "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in such
Registration Statement.


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
November 24, 2008
July 9 , 201 3



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MCNEIL INTEREST S , INC. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 01142

- CV V.

JAMES G. QUISENBERRY , JR., Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, James G. Quisenberry, Jr., signed October 11, 201 2 , was heard on the transcript of the
record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred in finding that the claims of appellant, McNeil Interests, Inc., on the $600,000 Amegy note and the $100,000 McNeil Interests note are barred by res judicata

. We therefor e order that the portions of the judgment in favor of James G. Qusienberry, Jr. on McNei l Interests, Inc.’ s claims on the $600,000 Amegy n ote and the $100,000 McNeil
Interests note are REVERSED and ordered severed and REMANDED for proceeding s in accordance with this court’ s opinion.

Further, we find no error in the remainder of the judgment and order it
AFFIRMED

.
We order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellee, James G. Quisenberry

.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.