alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23 - 20587 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Carmelo Salazar -**  **Salazar,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21 - CR - 562 - 1

**_____________ _________________**  Before **Jones, Southwick,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carmelo Salazar - Salazar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Salazar - Salazar has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief a nd the relevant portions of the

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 7, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-20587 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2024No. 23 - 20587

2 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from fur ther responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-20587 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2024
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID WAYNE TALLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-669

[April 12, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 562001CF1257A.

David Wayne Talley, Bushnell, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,878,824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,927,230
<PP&E>                                       1,168,825
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,026,150)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,069,905
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          289,518
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,780,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,069,905
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               631,036
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               334,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                296,465
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            296,465
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   296,465
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Frank Enns, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00 234

- C R

Trial court case number: 17

- 02

- 15918

Trial court: 506th District Court of Waller County

A ppellant, Frank Enns Jr., has filed a fourth motion to extend the time to file

appellant’s brief. Since filing his motion, appellant has filed his brief. Accordingly, the

Court dismisses appellant’s motion as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___ November 26, 2019

___
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04552**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04552\04552_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04552\04552_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04552\04552_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04552\04552_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04552\04552_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04552\04552_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04552\Certification Statement Plant ID 04552.pdf Plant certification statement x 04552\Supplemental Documents\04552_Effluent ICR extension July 26 2010.pdf Correspondence with EPA regarding survey submittal. x 04552\Supplemental Documents\04552_Effluent ICR Part A Question 5-2 site plan.JPG Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04552\Supplemental Documents\04552_Effluent ICR Part A Question 5-3 water balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04552\04552_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04552\04552_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 04552\Supplemental Documents\04552_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### C.T.R., by Next Friend, E.R., and the Jefferson County Department of Social Services, Appellees, v. R.C.S., Appellant.

No. 82CA1504.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Oct. 20, 1983.

Nolan L. Brown, Dist. Atty., Patricia Muller, Deputy Dist. Atty., Lakewood, for appellees.

Tague & Beem, P.C., Clifford L. Beem, Anne M. Vitek, Denver, for appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

In this paternity action, the defendant, R.C.S., appeals the amount awarded as child support, arguing that the findings made by the juvenile Commissioner, and adopted and affirmed by the trial court, were not supported by the evidence. Plaintiffs, the child C.T.R., and the Jefferson County Department of Social Services, argue that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal since the defendant failed to seek review within five days of the Commissioner’s findings. We affirm.

Plaintiffs’ contention that jurisdiction is lacking is without merit. While § 19-1-110(5), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.) provides that the Commissioner’s findings automatically become the decree of the trial court if not appealed within five days, the *549Commissioner’s written findings and recommendations were not filed in the district court until August 9, 1982. Hence, the request for review filed on August 10 was timely. *See People in Interest of M.C.L.,*671 P.2d 1339 (Colo.App.1983).

The defendant argues that the Commissioner’s findings, adopted by the court, concerning his income, ability to pay support, and credibility as a witness on those matters were erroneous. These issues are within the fact-finder’s discretion, and will be sustained absent a clear abuse of discretion. *See Carlson v. Carlson,*178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972); *In re Marriage of Anderson,*37 Colo.App. 55, 541 P.2d 1274 (1975). There is no such showing of abuse since the record supports the findings.

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
1 It appears from the Administrative Record in this case that the Appellant spells his own first name "Egneacio." Neverthele ss, beginning with the District Court's decision, the name has been spelled "Egnaci o." Wiley's own brief uses that spelling, so we will as well. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1253

___________ Egnacio Wiley, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner * [UNPUBLISHED] of Social Security, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: October 19, 2007 Filed: October 25, 2007

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Egnacio Wiley 1 appeals the denial of his applications seeking to collect disability insurance benefits and supplem ental security income from the Social Security Administration (SSA). We affirm.2 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- On August 30, 2004, at age 32, Wiley applied for benefits , alleging disability since June 19, 2002, due to persistent back and leg pain. The Commissioner of the SSA denied benefits. Wile y sought review by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who determined after a hearing that Wiley wa s not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act because he retained th e capacity to perform a full range of light work, and that the Commissioner had proved the existence of jobs in the community that Wiley could perform. (At the hearing before the ALJ in June 2005, Wiley amended the onset date of his disability to July 30, 2004, since he worked as a porter through most of July 2004.) The SSA Appeals Council denied Wiley's request for review thus making the ALJ's decision the fi nal determination. Upon judicial review, the District Court 2affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits. Wiley appeals.

We review de novo the District Court's decision affirming the ALJ. Nicola v. Astrue , 480 F.3d 885, 886 (8th Cir. 2007). At th e time of the decision, Wiley was not engaged in substantial gainfu l activity and his impairment was categorized as severe, but the ALJ determined that Wiley's limitations were not credible to the degree alleged and that the Commissioner demonstrated th at Wiley's impairment did not preclude substantial gainful activity. After careful re view of the record, we hold that the denial of benefits to Wiley is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See id. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

______________________________
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A1343. WILSON v. THE STATE.

Following a jury trial, Jonathan George Wilson was convicted of a total of 14

criminal charges. He filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied as to

Counts 1-13, but granted as to Count 14. That same day, the court entered an order

of nolle prosequi as to Count 14. Wilson then filed a notice of appeal to this Court,

but we lack jurisdiction because the appeal is premature.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1), appeals generally may be taken from “[a]ll final

judgments, that is to say, where the case is no longer pending in the court below.” A

trial court order granting a motion for new trial is a non-final order, leaving the case

pending before the trial court. See State v. Ware, 282 Ga. 676, 677 (653 SE2d 21)

(2007), superseded in part on other grounds by statute, Ga. L. 2011, pp. 612-613, §

1 (codified at OCGA § 5-7-2); see also Prather v. State, 303 Ga. App. 374, 375, n.5

(693 SE2d 546) (2010). Although the trial court entered an order of nolle prosequi

as to Count 14, it appears that the court has not yet resentenced Wilson to reflect that

order. Consequently,the case remains pending below, andWilson wasrequired to use

the interlocutory appeal procedures – including obtaining a certificate of immediate

review from the trial court – to obtain appellate review at this juncture. See OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b); Boyd v. State, 191 Ga. App. 435, 435 (383 SE2d 906) (1989). Hisfailure

to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED. See Boyd, 191 Ga. App. at 435.

Upon entry of a trial court order resentencing Wilson, the superior court clerk

is DIRECTED to re-transmit the appeal to this Court and to include a copy of this

order in the record transmitted at that time. Wilson need not file a second notice of

February 25, 2020
appeal to obtain appellate review at that time.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/25/2020
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies, in all material respects, 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 result of operations of the                Company                for the period certified. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                                     |                                |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Date:              November 14, 2007 | By:                                                            | /s/ Ramesh              Akella |
|                                 | Ramesh              Akella                                               |
|                                 | President,              Chief              Strategy Officer and Director |

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL12-48-000]


City of New Martinsville, WV; Notice of Petition for Enforcement

    Take notice that on March 15, 2012, pursuant to section 
210(h)(2)(B) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 
(PURPA), the City of New Martinsville, West Virginia filed a petition 
requesting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 
initiate an enforcement action against the Public Service Commission of 
West Virginia (PSC) and granting such other relief as the Commission 
may deem proper in order to remedy the PSC's violations of PURPA.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98deddcadbd7f6f4f1f6fdcbede8e8f7eaecd8fefdeafbb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="34727166777b5a585d5a51674144445b464074525146571a535b42">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 29, 2012.

    Dated: March 15, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6791 Filed 3-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Rosemary Milich, Respondent, v James Milich, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), entered August 7, 1989, as amended February 6, 1990, as (1) directed him to pay pendente lite maintenance to the wife in the amount of $200 per week, and (2) directed him to pay one-half of the carrying charges and other expenses of the marital residence, including cable television services, lawn care and telephone service.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that the focus of the court in fixing a temporary maintenance award is "to accommodate the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking support and the financial ability of the other spouse to meet those needs” *(Rigberg v Rigberg,*124 AD2d 723, 724; *see, Chosed v Chosed,*116 AD2d 690). Given the financial data and other evidence before the Supreme Court, we discern no error in its temporary maintenance award of $200 per week to the wife under the circumstances of this case. The husband is reminded that the best remedy for any perceived inequity in the temporary award is a prompt trial of the issues *(see, Ross v Ross,*137 AD2d 800; *Perelman v Perelman,*110 AD2d 629).

We have considered the husband’s remaining contentions *796and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.1


 





Alaia Capital, LLC


10 Corbin Drive


Darien, Connecticut 06820


 


December 4, 2020


 


m+ Growth 300 Fund, m+ funds Trust, Series 3-5


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, New York 10286


 


		Re:	m+ funds Trust, Series 3-5 (the “Trust”)



 


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


We have examined Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
(File No. 333-248132) for the above captioned Trust. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement of the references
to Alaia Capital, LLC as evaluator.


 


You are hereby authorized to file a copy
of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 
	 	Alaia Capital, LLC	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Oscar Loynaz	 
	 	 	Name: Oscar Loynaz	 
	 	 	Title:  Managing Director
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 11 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]






                                                        Calendar No. 19
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 11

  Prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in the Federal 
 Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) unless Congress enacts 
   specific authorization in law for the conduct of those operations.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 23, 1999

 Mr. Smith of New Hampshire introduced the following joint resolution; 
                     which was read the first time

                           February 24, 1999

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
  Prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in the Federal 
 Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) unless Congress enacts 
   specific authorization in law for the conduct of those operations.

Whereas United States national security interests in Kosovo do not rise to a 
        level that warrants military operations by the United States; and
Whereas Kosovo is a province in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a sovereign 
        state: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE 
              FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO).

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the 
funds available to the Department of Defense (including prior 
appropriations) may be used for the purpose of conducting military 
operations by the Armed Forces of the United States in the Federal 
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) unless Congress first 
enacts a law containing specific authorization for the conduct of those 
operations.
    (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to--
            (1) any intelligence or intelligence-related activity or 
        surveillance or the provision of logistical support; or
            (2) any measure necessary to defend the Armed Forces of the 
        United States against an immediate threat.
                                     





                                                        Calendar No. 19

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             S. J. RES. 11

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

  Prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in the Federal 
 Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) unless Congress enacts 
   specific authorization in law for the conduct of those operations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 24, 1999

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar`
Exhibit
32.1




SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on From 10-Q of Israel
Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the “Registrant”) for the quarter year ended
April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of the
Registrant.




Dated:
      June 14, 2010
                  
                  /s/
      J. Patrick McMahonJ.
      Patrick McMahonChief
      Executive Officer