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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7841

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner - Appellee, versus MICHAEL CURTIS, Respondent - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (2:89-00054-1; 2:05-cv-00949) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 26, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Curtis, Appellant Pro Se. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Curtis seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as successive his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 2 8 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38(2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484(2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Curtis’ motion to hold his case in abeyance as moot, and deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### In re SCHREIBER. LONDON v. SCHREIBER.

No. 259.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 1, 1937.

Leo Guzik, of New York City (Ephriam S. London, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Morris J. Solomon, of New York City (Irvin E. Sprintzen, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order in bankruptcy denying leave to a creditor to file specifications of objection to the bankrupt’s discharge. The bankrupt filed a voluntary petition, ori January 31, 1936, and applied for his discharge on June 15th. A rule issued upon this application, returnable at ,10:30 a. m. on July 31st, requiring all creditors to show cause why the discharge should not be granted. On the return day the attorney for the objecting creditor, wishing to file specifications of objection, appeared in court, but did not answer when the clerk called the bankrupt’s name; there being no appearance in opposition, the case was marked for discharge. The attorney had not heard the case called; and for the purposes of this appeal it may be assumed that he was delinquent in failing to do so. However, he served the specifications on the bankrupt and asked the clerk to accept them; and when the clerk refused, he appealed to the judge in charge of the calendar to compel him to do so, who told him that he must move to vacate the discharge. 'All this took place on the return day of the rule; and ten days later he secured a rule to vacate the discharge and to require the clerk to accept the specifications. The appeal is from the order denying this relief.

General Order 32 (11 U.S.C.A. following section 53) directs that the creditor “shall enter his appearance * * * . on the day when the creditors are required to show cause, and shall at the same time file a specification.” This does not in terms give the creditor the whole of the return day, and possibly there may be situations in which the granting of the discharge upon the call should be final, though the creditor later applies to file the specifications on the same day. No such circumstances existed here; at worst the default was due to the *443momentary inattention of the creditor’s attorney at the call, and that ought not to forfeit his client’s rights. At once he did what he could to remedy his default; first, he applied to the clerk, then to the judge, and finally he acted upon the judge’s instructions. His delay of ten days in moving was not long enough to bar the relief so suggested to him; the General Order had been complied with, and while expedition was still necessary, the interval was short and nothing had happened meanwhile which made it unjust to allow the proceeding to be reopened.

Order reversed; adjudication vacated; creditor’s specifications to be filed by the clerk of the District Court.
#### SAMUEL JOHNSON *vs.*EDWARD SILLETOE.

Cause continued, at the first trial term, on account of the absence of a material witness out of the state, though his deposition might have been taken.

Motion for a continuance.

The defendant made affidavit of the absence of a material witness in the State of Maryland, and another in Pennsylvania, both of whom *306he expected to be here at this time. He knew of their residence out of the jurisdiction of the court.

Mr. *Bayard*

suggested that it would be very inconvenient in practice to require commissions in all cases to be taken out in time for depositions at the first trial term. The parties seldom know what course to take as to absent witnesses, and it is not usual for them to see counsel as to the preparation of causes until after the publication of the trial list.

The issue in this case was not joined until the third rule day, (1st of October,) and this is the first trial term.

*Gray,*for plaintiff.

*J. A. Bayard,,*for defendant.

*The Court*

said that in general the purposes of justice would be better obtained by allowing a continuance in cases situated similarly with the present, than by forcing on a trial; unless it was suggested by counter affidavit that the plaintiff was in danger of losing his debt by the delay, or other special reason against the continuance.

Cause continued.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1039 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the Marine Gunnery 

Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to include spouses of members 

of the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the Marine 

Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to include 

spouses of members of the Armed Forces who die in 

the line of duty, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Spouses of Heroes 

5 Education Act’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1039 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF MARINE GUNNERY SERGEANT JOHN 

2 DAVID FRY SCHOLARSHIP. 

3 (a) EXPANSION OF ENTITLEMENT.—Subsection 

4 (b)(9) of section 3311 of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘or spouse’’ after ‘‘child’’. 

6 (b) LIMITATION AND ELECTION ON CERTAIN BENE7 FITS.—Subsection (f) of such section is amended— 

8 (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para9 graph (4); and 

10 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol11 lowing new paragraphs: 

12 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The entitlement of an indi13 vidual to assistance under subsection (a) pursuant to 

14 paragraph (9) of subsection (b) because the indi15 vidual was a spouse of a person described in such 

16 paragraph shall expire on the earlier of— 

17 ‘‘(A) the date that is 15 years after the 

18 date on which the person died; and 

19 ‘‘(B) the date on which the individual re20 marries. 

21 ‘‘(3) ELECTION ON RECEIPT OF CERTAIN BENE22 FITS.—A surviving spouse entitled to assistance 

23 under subsection (a) pursuant to paragraph (9) of 

24 subsection (b) who is also entitled to educational as25 sistance under chapter 35 of this title may not re26 ceive assistance under both this section and such 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1039 IS

1 chapter, but shall make an irrevocable election (in 

2 such form and manner as the Secretary may pre3 scribe) under which section or chapter to receive 

4 educational assistance.’’. 

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 3321(b)(4) 

6 of such title is amended by striking ‘‘an individual’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘a child’’. 

8 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall take effect on the date that is 90 days 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 114 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 114

  To authorize reduced postage rates for certain mail matter sent to 
                          Members of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 21, (legislative day, January 5), 1993

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize reduced postage rates for certain mail matter sent to 
                          Members of Congress.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) chapter 32 of 
title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
the following new section:
``Sec. 3221. Mail matter sent to Members of Congress
    ``(a) Any person may send any piece of mail matter, not exceeding 
four ounces in weight, for postage of 1 cent to (1) any Member of the 
Senate representing the State, and (2) the Member of the House of 
Representatives representing the district, in which such person 
resides, if that person uses a special stamp issued by the Postal 
Service for any such matter. The Postal Service shall issue special 1-
cent stamps to be used in sending such matter, and such stamps shall 
only be sold at post offices.
    ``(b) For the purposes of this section--
            ``(1) `district' includes Puerto Rico and the District of 
        Columbia;
            ``(2) `Member of the House of Representatives' includes a 
        Representative, Delegate, and Resident Commissioner; and
            ``(3) a Member of the House of Representatives elected at 
        large from a State having more than one district shall be 
        considered a Member elected from each district of that 
        State.''.
    (b) The analysis of such chapter is amended by adding after the 
item relating to section 3220 the following new item:

``3221. Mail matter sent to Members of Congress.''.
    (c) Section 2401(c) of such title is amended by inserting ``3221,'' 
after ``3217,''.

                                 <all>
```
#### HENSON *v.*STATE

[App. No. 50,

September Term, 1961.]

*Decided January 12, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney and Marbury, JJ.

Per Curiam

Order

The applicant asks leave to appeal from the refusal of the Criminal Court of Baltimore to order that a transcript of the proceedings in which the applicant was convicted in 1953, be furnished to him by the State at State expense in order that he may use it in support of an application for a writ of habeas corpus which he has filed in the Supreme Court of the United States, tie has been advised by the Clerk of the Criminal Court: “Should the Supreme Court of the United States request this office to forward it the papers in the case, including *660the testimony of your trial, their request will be complied with.”

This application is in substance an original petition to this Court for a writ of mandamus to effect a purpose not related to the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The issuance of such a writ is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. It follows that the application must be dismissed.

*Application for leave to appeal dismissed.*
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Howard Edward CUDE.

No. 62876.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Howard Edward Cude applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Bossier.

Granted. The district court is ordered to obtain the return of applicant from the Texas penitentiary and try him within 90 days in the absence of which the detainer will be cancelled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            5290
<SECURITIES>                                       310
<RECEIVABLES>                                      384
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5674
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              108
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        5876
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5984
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8028
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   256
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5888
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5888
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5888
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.20


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15045]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Audacious Goals Initiative RFA on Translation-Enabling 
Models (U24).
    Date: August 3, 2018.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Anne E. Schaffner, Ph.D., Chief, Scientific 
Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye 
Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 
20892-9300, (301) 451-2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#69080c1a29070c0047070001470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5a4a0b685aba0acebabacadeba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-15045 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

RE APPOINTMENT S TO

CONTINUING JUDICIAL

EDUCATION BOARD OF

JUDGES :

:

:

:

:

:

: NO. 785

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 27 th day of December , 201 8 , the following members are hereby

reappointed to the Continuing Judicial Education Board of Judges for a term of three

years, commencing January 1, 201 9 :

The Honorable Ren é e Cohn Jubelirer

The Honorable Richard A. Lewis

The Honorable Stephen P.B. Minor

The Honorable Victor P. Stabile
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John A. WHITSELL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53568.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: John A. Whitsell applying for writ of habeas corpus and remedial writs.

Application denied. ' The hearing requested was held on May 17, 1973 in the district court.
EXHIBIT 32

Officer Certification under 18 USC 1350

We, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of AXS-One Inc. (the "issuer"), do hereby certify that this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

|                  |  | AXS-ONE INC.
|----------------- |  | ------------
|Date:May 15, 2003 |  | By:         
|                  |  | By:         

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors and Shareholders
Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-159253, 333-134480, and 333-123672) on
Form S-3 and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-143965, 333-135861, 333-126209, 333-115729, 333-89476,
333-71368, 333-41764, and 333-32583) on Form S-8 of Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2009, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheet of Poniard Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Poniard
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Our report dated March 16, 2009 contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and negative cash
flows. Furthermore, the Company's long-term debt agreement contains certain covenants that require the Company to maintain a certain level of unrestricted cash and cash equivalents, and
contains certain subjective acceleration clauses related to material adverse changes which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to
these matters are also described in note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Seattle,
Washington
March 16, 2010

---
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Habersham Bancorp's Registration
Statement Nos. 33-64149, 33-61587 and 33-61589 on Forms S-8 and Registration
Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of our report dated January 17, 1997
(January 23, 1997 as to Note 15), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
of Habersham Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 1996.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 24, 1997





                                       70
Exhibit 10.22



EXAR CORPORATION



COMPENSATION DEFERRAL AND OPTION CANCELLATION AGREEMENT



This Agreement is made June 13, 2005 (the Effective Date), by and between Exar Corporation (the Company) and Raimon L. Conlisk
(the Participant).



Under the terms of the
Companys 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan (the Plan) the Participant elected on December 15, 2004 to apply fifty percent (50%) of Participants directors fees to be earned during 2005 (the 2005
Deferral) toward the acquisition of a stock option to purchase shares of the Companys common stock at a price less than the fair market value of the stock on the date the option was granted in accordance with the terms and conditions of
Section 6 of the Plan. In connection with the 2005 Deferral, on January 3, 2005, the Company granted Participant an option to purchase 3,229 shares of Company common stock with an exercise price equal to $4.60 (the 2005 Option).



As permitted by Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended, the Participant and the Company both desire to cancel both the 2005 Deferral and the 2005 Option.



The Participant and the Company agree as follows:



1. The 2005 Deferral shall be cancelled as of the Effective Date and the amount of directors fees previously subject to the 2005 Deferral will be
paid to the Participant as soon as administratively practicable, but in no event more than 30 days following the Effective Date.



2. The 2005 Option shall be cancelled as of the Effective Date and that following such cancellation, the Participant shall have no rights whatsoever with
respect to the 2005 Option.



3. This Agreement represents the
entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, whether written or oral. No waiver, alteration or modification of any of the provisions of this Agreement
shall be binding, unless in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto.



4. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, regardless of the laws that might otherwise
govern under applicable principles of conflicts of laws thereof.



|                 |  |                      |  |                      
|---------------- |  | -------------------- |  | ---------------------
|EXAR CORPORATION |  | PARTICIPANT         
|                 |  |                     
|By:              |  | /s/ Roubik Gregorian |  | /s/ Raimon L. Conlisk
|Its:             |  | President            |  | Raimon L. Conlisk