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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1395

PAM MANEY; WANDA B. BRADLEY; JUDY WILLIAMSON; JANET P. FRYE; WILLIAM JONES; WALLACE C. LEATHERWOOD, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and
BUNCOMBE COUNTY/WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA FAIR ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED; CURTIS HAWKINS, Plaintiffs,

versus JAMES GRAHAM, Individually and in his capacity as North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture; WILLIAM EDMONSSON, Individually and in his capacity as Director of the Western North Carolina Agriculture Center; CLAYTON DAVIS; WELDON DENNY; WAYNE MILLER; DAVID MCLEOD; CRAIG GLOVER; WAYNE WALKER; STEVE MOBLEY, Individually and in their capacities as employees of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture; MORRIS MCGOUGH, a/k/a Mac, Defendants - Appellees, and RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, Individually and in his capacity as Secretary of State of North Carolina; BETTY Y. JUSTUS, Individually and in her capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue, Defendants.2Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-94-167-1) Submitted: February 25, 1997 Decided: March 25, 1997 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pam Maney, Wanda B. Bradley, Judy Williamson, Janet P. Frye, William Jones, Wallace C. Leatherwood, Appellants Pro Se. Lars Franklin Nance, Thomas Giles Meacham, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Appellants appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss their claims for monetary relief, as well as their supplemental state law claims and various motions, but rejecting the magistrate judge's recommendation todismiss Appellants' claims for injunctive relief against the Appellees in their official capacities. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 12541 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17

- cv
- 20381

- KMW

MICHAEL ROZIER,
Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (August 27, 2019) Case: 17-12541 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 Page: 1 of 32 Before MARTIN , JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON , Circui t Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We GRANT Rozier’s petition for panel rehearing, v acate our prior opinion
in this case , and replace it with this one. Since our last opinion issued, this Court issued a precedential decision in Paez v. Secretary, Florida Department of
Corrections , No. 16

- 15705 (11th Cir. July 31, 2019). There, as here, a state inmate filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that looked to be untimely. And there, as here, the district court sua sponte dismissed the petitio n without ordering a response from the State.
In Paez , the Court held that district courts “must order the State to respond, even if the petition appears untimely [,] ” whenever the petition “states a legally
sufficient claim for relief.” Id. , slip op. at 2. The Court explained that “[t]his response need not be an answer on the merits” but may instead “take whatever form the district court deems appropriate, including a motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds.” Id. Because the district cour t in Paez ordered no State
response, t his Court vacated and remanded for the district court to order the State to respond to the petition. Id. , slip op. at 16.
To maintain harmony among th is Court’s decisions , we will follow Paez
here . We thus VACATE t he dismissal of Rozier’s § 2254 petition and REMAND

Case: 17-12541 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 Page: 2 of 33 for further proceedings consistent with Paez . Our ruling does not prejudice the ability of the Secretary to raise the timeliness of Rozier’s petition on remand.

Case: 17-12541 Date Filed: 08/27/2019 Page: 3 of 3
#### Bernard Wilbert HENSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-406.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 1974.

Richard Ervin, III, Public Defender, and David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Andrew W. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and no reversible error having been demonstrated, the final judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and BOYER and Mc-CORD, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 208 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

500 West Main Street, Suite 102 in Tupelo, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Colonel 

Carlyle ‘Smitty’ Harris Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2021 

Mr. KELLY of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 500 West Main Street, Suite 102 in Tupelo, 

Mississippi, as the ‘‘Colonel Carlyle ‘Smitty’ Harris Post 

Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COLONEL CARLYLE ‘‘SMITTY’’ HARRIS POST OF4 FICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 500 West Main Street, Suite 102 

7 in Tupelo, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as 

8 the ‘‘Colonel Carlyle ‘Smitty’ Harris Post Office’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 208 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Colonel Carlyle 

5 ‘Smitty’ Harris Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 51002 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ANDY THOMAS SCHUMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:09

- CR

- 53

- 1

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Andy Schuman was serving separate terms of supervised release for two different drug convictions. One conviction was from 2003; the one in this case was from 2009. The district court found that he violated the conditions of release by using amp hetamines and failing to comply with his drug treatment plan. In this case, the court sentenced him to a prison term of twelve months. That sentence would run consecutive to the ten

- month sentence ordered in the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under t he limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 10, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-51002 Document: 00515448238 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2020No. 19

- 51002

2 other case. Schuman argues that the twelv e - month sentence in this case was substantively unreasonable (the appeal of his revocation sentence in the other case was dismissed after counsel filed an Anders brief). Schuman contends this revocation sentence was unreasonably high because his personal circumstances, specifically his substance abuse problem, did not warrant a consecutive twelve

- month sentence

. He also claims that the term was unnecessary to protect the public because his criminal history did not involve violence. But t he district court considered Schuman’s arguments for residential treatment and his defense that he was nonviolent. Schuman h as not shown that the district court, when imposing the sentence, failed to consider a significant factor, considered an impr oper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the relev ant factors. See United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013)

. Furthermore, his sentence was within the advisory range and therefore presumed reasonable. See United State s v. Candia , 454 F.3d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 2006). As such , he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. 1 S ee Warren , 720 F.3d at 332

. AFFIRMED.

1 The parties dispute whether Schuman’s appeal is subject to plain error review in light of Holguin

- Hernandez v. United States , 140 S. Ct. 762, 766

- 67 (2020)

. It is unnecessary to determine whether plain error applies because Schuman cannot prevail even assuming he preserved his objection to the sentence. Case: 19-51002 Document: 00515448238 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2020
#### Marillyn Ball DANIS, Appellant, v. Anthony L. DANIS, Jr., Appellee.

No. O-326.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1971.

Robert G. Alexander, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Chandler, O’Neal, Carlisle, Avera, Gray & Lang, Gainesville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See Cole v. Cole, 130 So.2d 126 (Fla.App.1961).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.02**

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:                  /s/ | William                  Salek                                      |   |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:                    | William                  Salek                                      |   |
|                     | Chief                  Financial Officer                            |   |
|                     | Date:     August                  27, 2007 |   |

----
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                                                 EXHIBIT 12
                                                                 COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
                                                 Computation of Consolidated Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                                                (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                    Twelve
                                                                                                    Months
                                                                  Year Ended December 31,            Ended
                                                   1996      1997       1998      1999      2000    3/31/01
<S>                                              <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>        <C>      <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds. . . . . . . . $59,711    $55,156   $47,323   $43,207    $40,602  $40,171
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt. . . . . . . .  12,125     15,525    23,594    25,878     25,878   25,878
  Interest on Short-term Debt . . . . . . . . . .   2,400      5,104     3,493     2,460      2,412    2,999
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges. . . . . . . . .   4,374      4,729     4,459     4,659     14,205   14,047
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals . .   4,600      4,100     5,300     4,600      5,300    5,300
       Total Fixed Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . $83,210    $84,614   $84,169   $80,804    $88,397  $88,395

Earnings:
  Income Before Extraordinary Item    . . . . . . $107,108   $119,379  $133,044  $150,270  $120,202 $130,402
  Plus Federal Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . .   60,302     69,760    71,202    82,686   116,590  118,202
  Plus State Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . .       11          6         3        89       136    1,364
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above) . . . . . . . . .   83,210     84,614    84,169    80,804    88,397   88,395
       Total Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $250,631   $273,759  $288,418  $313,849  $325,325 $338,363

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges. . . . . . . .     3.01       3.23      3.42      3.88      3.68     3.82
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cindisue Mining Corp. (the
"Company") for the year ended January 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Donovan L. Cooper, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and

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


Date: April 19, 2011                     By: /s/ Donovan L. Cooper
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Donovan L. Cooper
                                             Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 31.2





CERTIFICATIONS





I, Mitch Reback, certify that:





1.    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sweetgreen, Inc.;





2.    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;





3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;





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


(a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


(b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


(d)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.    The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):


(a)    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


(b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date: March 4, 2022





/s/ Mitch Reback


Mitch Reback


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 11

                              Congoleum Corporation
                  Computation of (Loss) Income Per Common Share
                (Amounts in thousands, except earnings per share)

                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31,
Basic (Loss) Earnings Per Common Share:                      2000       1999
                                                           --------    ------

(Loss) income per common and common equivalent share       $ (1,934)   $  737
                                                           ========    ======

Weighted average common shares outstanding                    8,286     8,981
                                                           ========    ======

(Loss) income per common share                             $   (.23)   $  .08
                                                           ========    ======

Diluted (Loss) Earnings Per Common Share

(Loss) income per common and common equivalent share       $ (1,934)   $  737
                                                           ========    ======

Weighted average common shares outstanding                    8,286     8,981
                                                           ========    ======

Weighted average common and common equivalent shares          8,286     8,981
                                                           ========    ======

(Loss) income per common and common equivalent share       $   (.23)   $  .08
                                                           ========    ======


                                       15
#### SUN RAY PARK, INC., Appellant, v. SINGER CREDIT CORP., Appellee.

No. 70-558.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
t_..,/ SecretaryAnthony Foxx U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

## ~~, 

# te
ENEWAB

Re: DOCKET DOT-OST 2008-0299 Dear Secretary Foxx, May 13, 2014

I am writing this letter to express our severe concerns with the Department of Transportation's Tentative Order to terminate the Essential Air Service ("EAS") program in El Centro, California located in Imperial County. We, therefore, strongly request that you rescind the Tentative Order. 8minutenergy Renewables, LLC is one the largest solar developers in the State ofCalifornia. Imperial County is the area where we have our largest presence. Therefore, effective and rapid means of transportation are essential for our business and for the local economy. The local airport was a significant factor in making our decision to develop in Imperial County. To put into perspective our economic presence in Imperial County, since 2009 our projects have contributed approximately $40 million to the local economy in the form ofpayments to the local governmental agencies, employment wages, and land acquisition for the multiple development projects. We are about to spend an additional $20 million for aprojectthat weplan to start construction late this year. In addition, we are planning on commencing construction on a second project that would be a 100 MW solar farm late this year. The 100 MW solar farm has a construction cost ofapproximately $200 million. The construction costs provide a direct and indirectbenefitto the local economy. Further, we believe that the termination of the EAS may be in violation of the National Environmental PolicyAct and contraryto the department's principle ofEnvironmental Justice. "Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmentaljusticepart of its mission by identifYing and addressing,

... disproportionately high and adverse

... environmental effects of itsprograms ... on minoritypopulation. " We, therefore, requestfor you to rescind the Tentative Orderbecause to terminate the EAS would disproportionatelyimpact Imperial County's minoritypopulationby eliminating their opportunityto having adequate means ofairtravel and severelyhandicap the local economy. 

# Sinc?Z

' I

### M~ ann,CEO )'S,ll):{nu energy Renewables
5455 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2010.Los Angeles. CA 900361 Main: (323) 525-0900 IFax: (310) 424-71121 www,8minutenergy.com
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30114]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; 
Subcommittee on Nuclear Physics; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences 
(66).
    Date and Time: December 3, 1997, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Rm. 360, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Marvin Goldberg, Program Director for 
Elementary Particle Physics, Physics Division, Room 1015, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 306-1894.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning experiments involving international collaborations.
    Agenda: Discussion of Nuclear Physics collaborations.

    Dated: November 10, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-30114 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M