alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Sebring BLACKWELDER, Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Appellee.

No. 72-926.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 21, 1973.

Charles W. Musgrove, Public Defender, and William Bassett, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

*317Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A full appellate review was granted to the petitioner herein on the authority of Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla. 1967, 194 So.2d 577. The briefs and record on appeal have been examined and given full consideration and, the petitioner having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of conviction and sentence of the lower court appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and WARREN, LAMAR, Associate Judge, concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00290

- CV
In the Interest of S.R.B., a Child

On a ppeal from the 430th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 4327

- 17

- J

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision ce rtified below for observance. August 2, 2018
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2966 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2966

 To amend the National Trails Systems Act to designate the route from 
           Selma to Montgomery as a National Historic Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 1993

  Mr. Lewis of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Hilliard, Ms. McKinney, Mr. 
   Clyburn, Mr. Towns, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Hastings, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. 
Foglietta, Mr. Fazio, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Clay, Mr. Frank 
of Massachusetts, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Sanders, 
 Mr. Richardson, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Kildee, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Bishop, Mr. 
 Kennedy, Mrs. Mink, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Frost, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Neal of 
   North Carolina, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Evans, Mr. Wheat, Mr. Barrett of 
  Wisconsin, Miss Collins of Michigan, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Watt, Mrs. 
   Morella, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Trails Systems Act to designate the route from 
           Selma to Montgomery as a National Historic Trail.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 5(a) of 
the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)) is amended by adding 
at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
    ``(    ) The Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, 
consisting of 54 miles of city streets and United States Highway 80 
from Brown Chapel to A.M.E. Church in Selma to the State Capitol 
Building in Montgomery, Alabama, traveled by voting rights advocates 
during March 1965 to dramatize the need for voting rights legislation, 
as generally described in the report of the Secretary of the Interior 
prepared pursuant to subsection (b) of this section entitled `Selma to 
Montgomery' and dated April 1993. Maps depicting the route shall be on 
file and available for public inspection in the Office of the National 
Park Service, Department of the Interior. The trail shall be 
administered by the Secretary of the Interior. In the administration of 
the trail, the Secretary shall cooperate with State and local 
authorities to preserve historic sites, including (but not limited to) 
the Edmund Pettus Bridge and the Brown Chapel AME Church.''.

                                 <all>
```
Table 1. National Summary of State Public

Employee Retirement System Finances:

Fiscal Year 2007

(Thousand dollars)

Item Amount Percent

Total receipts 488,102,626 100.0%

 Employee contributions 29,789,803 6.1%

 Government contributions 57,645,659 11.8%

 State government contributions 26,058,758 5.3%

 Local government contributions 31,586,901 6.5%

 Earnings on investments(1) 400,667,164 82.1%

Total payments 149,093,838 100.0%

 Benefits 131,639,204 88.3%

 Withdrawals 4,562,127 3.1%

 Other payments 12,892,507 8.6%

Total cash and investment holdings 2,822,660,076 100.0%

Cash and short-term investments 93,440,645 3.3%

Total securities 2,431,581,706 86.1%

 Governmental securities 226,911,170 8.0%

 Federal government 225,457,403 8.0%

 United States Treasury 134,835,661 4.8%

 Federal agency 90,621,742 3.2%

 State and local government 1,453,767 0.1%

 Nongovernmental 2,204,670,536 78.1%

 Corporate bonds 364,378,880 12.9%

 Corporate stocks 1,033,710,822 36.6%

 Mortgages 12,715,529 0.5%

 Funds held in trust 68,544,899 2.4%

 Foreign and international 443,007,121 15.7%

 Other nongovernmental 282,313,285 10.0%

Other investments 297,637,725 10.5%

 Real property 87,675,532 3.1%

 Miscellaneous investments 209,962,193 7.4%

Pension Obligations 2,661,969,956 100.00%

Covered Payroll 499,553,461 100.00%

Data Created: February 25, 2011

Data Last Revised: April 22, 2011

(1) The total of "net earnings" is a calculated statistic (the item code in the data file is 

X08), and thus can be positive or negative. Net earnings is the sum of earnings on 

investments plus gains on investments minus losses on investments. The change 

made in 2002 for asset valuation from book to market value in accordance with 

Statement 34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board is reflected in the 

calculated statistics.

Source: 2007 Annual Survey of Public Employee Retirement Systems. Data users 

who create their own estimates using data from this report should cite the U.S. 

Census Bureau as the source of the original data only. The data in this table are 

based on information from public records and contain no confidential data. Although 

the data in this table come from a census of retirement systems and are not subject 

to sampling error, the census results do contain nonsampling error. Additional 

information on nonsampling error, and response rates may be found at 

http://www.census.gov/govs/retire/how_data_collected.html.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HITSGALORE.COM, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         581,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  329,182
<ALLOWANCES>                                    62,495
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               850,276
<PP&E>                                          65,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,226)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 909,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,853,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    109,764
<COMMON>                                        47,370
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,100,955)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   909,775
<SALES>                                        463,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               391,679
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  185,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                206,658
<INCOME-TAX>                                    78,530
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            128,128
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   128,128
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
#### Alex K. EASTON, Appellant, v. Muriel A. WEIR, Appellee.

No. 68-346.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 17, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.
c C^ulS<L- Cv0 S Q2 r/-^- &0-6 7^-C-!^ 0?--*-f* -O0Q73CLR IAS St^t^ of /e*^ C>?~ -7 3- -OQD7?Cf{

. 

### An oTioaj 1° //Vv-g- Cort^h7~or Crim //u_oJ- /)pf>z&J$ /jc~'<h t*J*•*•* ^Q(^-yrh Tr ^V s c *-ifls Fov /hpf> eJ/& as~A 

### /Tf/P^'t&-<vt J^fr^y Jw^^uOgl// /vo iaJ corner 

### "Tr ^i^ scripts , /Iff ^//c^Ajr /97^TA/vey ftAc-Aa-rat- 

### /tVAv SB /!/ O /O-7V.0/O AclS /-e-T^eJ a.// r*%uesf Si~*tk> 0O.It h&s to^z-^ HAJ.aMI*- To b e-'/> //v AAiAs fyiaCtteLh * /^jo eV/<^/v,4 Cc^/V AJ'oT~ Coa>1~/aj u^ T~b 

### OA> A/j &~ff ZjoJ IsO'/t^ O t>J~ ffl-±" CoUlhf Th&/0 S C^\pJs , 

## D*f<L S*ft 7£k, ZO/S~ J.^fr^y M^KuJ^Jf ^-/70>S?$S RECElVEDiN COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS O b e/r 7-js o /V Uaj / / f?-*7l F/V 35^& SEP II2015 ^//e/L/e , 7x 7?£o/ -. t

- / HLED iN -AfeilAeosla^srk courtofcriminal appeal -SEP 17 2315- AbelAcosta, Clerk -V*:
888 A.2d 1188

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner v. Christopher M. LEE, Respondent.

Misc. Docket AG No. 68

Sept. Term, 2005.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 23, 2005.

ORDER

The Court, having considered the Joint Petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and the Respondent, CHRISTOPHER M. LEE, to indefinitely suspend the Respondent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, it is this 23rd day of December, 2005;

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the joint petition be, and it is hereby GRANTED, and the Respondent, Christopher M. Lee, is hereby Indefinitely Suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED, that the said suspension shall commence immediately, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Christopher M. Lee from the register of attorneys and shall verify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-773(d).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7396

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALEXANDER FAUST, a/k/a Stanka,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-94-773)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Faust, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United

States Attorney, Kelly Elizabeth Shackelford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Faust pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and was sentenced on May 8, 1995. He filed

a notice of appeal on May 7, 2001, seeking review of his sentence

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (1994). However, this statute governs

direct criminal appeals and is unavailable to Faust who failed to

file a timely direct appeal. Criminal defendants have ten days

from the entry of the judgment or order at issue to file a notice

of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The appeal periods established

by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director,

Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Because Faust filed his

notice of appeal approximately six years outside the appeal period,

we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.

To the extent that Faust seeks to appeal the district court’s

November 23, 1999, denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001) motion, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Faust’s notice of appeal is also untimely as to that order. Parties are accorded sixty

days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to

note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 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). Furthermore, this

court has previously reviewed that order on appeal, and affirmed on
3

the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Faust,

No. 99-7673, 2000 WL 347051 (4th Cir. Mar. 15, 2000) (unpublished).

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
#### James WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2464.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                                 
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1
<CURRENCY>                             U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                                       221,027
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                508,092
<ALLOWANCES>                                  26,800
<INVENTORY>                                  442,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,376,843
<PP&E>                                     2,550,470
<DEPRECIATION>                               907,433
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             4,508,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2,506,572
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       4,456
<OTHER-SE>                                10,420,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               4,508,615
<SALES>                                    6,361,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           6,361,242
<CGS>                                      4,611,831
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              3,503,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            23,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1,746,447)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1,746,447)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1,746,447)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.30)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000027613
<NAME>                        Decorator Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1
<CURRENCY>                                  U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                         484,328
<SECURITIES>                                 1,445,796
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,884,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                   158,996
<INVENTORY>                                  5,739,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,777,241
<PP&E>                                       8,931,469
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,104,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,665,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,130,385
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       881,766
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,483,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,665,523
<SALES>                                     52,546,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,546,556
<CGS>                                       41,329,724
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,328,506
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                46,673
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,098
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,101,278
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,549,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,552,278
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,552,278
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73



</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-11059 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Julio Reynaldo Rivera, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:23-CR-123-1 

______________________________ 

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Julio Reynaldo Rivera appeals his conviction and 360-month sentence 

for sexual exploitation of children, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). 

Citing Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), Reynaldo Rivera argues 

that the district court plainly erred by accepting a factual resume that 

admitted only that the materials he used had moved in interstate commerce; 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

June 28, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-11059 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2024
No. 23-11059 

2 

he asserts that § 2251(a) should be construed as requiring the Government to 

prove that the offense caused the materials to move in interstate commerce 

or, at least, that the materials moved in interstate commerce recently. 

Reynaldo Rivera also contends, citing National Federation of Independent 

Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), that Congress’s power under the 

Commerce Clause authorizes it to regulate only commercial activity and that 

the use of an object that traveled through interstate commerce in the past is 

not, by itself, a commercial act. However, he concedes that his arguments 

are foreclosed under current precedent. The Government has filed an 

unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that Reynaldo Rivera’s 

challenge is foreclosed. 

Summary affirmance is appropriate if “the position of one of the 

parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial 

question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The parties are correct that Reynaldo 

Rivera’s challenge to his factual basis is foreclosed. See United States v. 

Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. Dickson, 632 F.3d 

186, 192 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 226-31 (5th 

Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance 

is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-11059 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2024
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 Annual Report of The Banker's Store, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul D.
Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 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 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.





DATED: AUGUST 30, 2004                      /S/ PAUL D. CLARK
                                            -----------------
                                            PAUL D. CLARK
                                            PRESIDENT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                                            AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
#### Frazer MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-359.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 26, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Roger F. Dykes, Chief Judge.

Appeal dismissed.