alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 131 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 131

Supporting the designation of March 2015, as National Colorectal Cancer 
                            Awareness Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2015

   Mr. Payne (for himself, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Dent, and Mr. Lance) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                   on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Supporting the designation of March 2015, as National Colorectal Cancer 
                            Awareness Month.

Whereas colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men 
        and women combined in the United States;
Whereas this year, more than 130,000 individuals in the United States will be 
        diagnosed with colorectal cancer and approximately 50,000 more will die 
        from it;
Whereas colorectal cancer is one of the most highly preventable forms of cancer 
        because screening tests can find polyps that can be removed before 
        becoming cancerous;
Whereas screening tests can detect colorectal cancer early, when treatment works 
        best;
Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that if every 
        individual aged 50 or older had regular screening tests, as many as 60 
        percent of deaths from colorectal cancer could be prevented;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for patients with localized colorectal cancer 
        is 90 percent, but only 39 percent of all diagnoses occur at this stage;
Whereas colorectal cancer screenings can effectively reduce colorectal cancer 
        incidence and mortality, yet, 1 in 3 adults between the ages of 50 and 
        75 are not up to date with recommended colorectal cancer screening;
Whereas public awareness and education campaigns on colorectal cancer 
        prevention, screening, and symptoms are held during the month of March 
        each year; and
Whereas educational efforts can help provide information to the public of 
        methods of prevention and screening, as well as about symptoms for early 
        detection: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the goals and ideals of National Colorectal 
        Cancer Awareness Month; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the month with appropriate awareness and educational 
        activities.
                                 <all>
```
CL

April )£jj*lSL

Uo^iWV

b UJnnrr> it pr\Cxu Co^cp-rA _p-f 4-W&- | At>^ C/3Uf"f o£_CLff>&G,lf.

_L/n u;ri4lfy& y^LuJoegiuife^_^ h^ur Feed kq^/W>A

Xyw W^rn^/LaWf a^ flf^e^L \k- dig! frof uocitc-A.

Cotttch- AJ»{?ce. o\ AffitrA, £ rW 4^ whU* &^_^_iij^

4-Vi, Coriv^f- u^, I^yptt lofeK a-1-Ivs Ao-Kve. 4-Ua /oa/f;

at AA^Ve^. IP* H -^"-ee /:v hy dtffir r& Af-e_ T/w Affc*

4We~ TVtr^ fourf gf^ App^- If *fo Tftu^- ?7*^ hria/^i^/L

k/'tKcAPfru/ W\r\&p\'F rro/vy ^vixi C.&$t ai\A run, S^/^c O/VJLl&bji/jin /?Ke. rr^ hrla/^OA tyr-c i/jk^ o^nple \)ku /At^

^^4—^feik/e lofic-Gr, QcvA Xi kzSkvJt-. ^e-AJojijr^^^-

t/JlIt /Vof ^*o Kk ^Tj /?, X^<k i/on -|W Third £o^r-o£

appeal^ jx> -pi)c J4\H 5/-t^^oa, So X/v\^ /to /- /a&_

^ /^gpga L^~K^A.fC (//7m far \f»ur V'rv-JL-.

ALUL j£^foc-KLlLj 5ub/wfiW

flrkjo SeLzcs- iI W2OZ015 - - « ma ]i ^'-LL^s^' i — ^Zr^fj^J> ;—

M/\cAteft SAclcs- \^couRTOFApP^LSJ Priori <? JcnL^^r

DiifaktCkflL

^^-Juc^J^^ Oe-.

>£>/^ bfi*+(osT)c 96*01
•si

m

••..1

w

Is)

Ifl

4*s ^r^) —1 -si

•^

1

? U^ Si_

_. *t*P r

'3 £ 1—

__ £ » % s- -o NJ ^- f-J -

—

<5*J M 2

=r •o 55s 2 X

=- ^ % r- -"

"7* -£

—

5

f

~ c :/aSSSjflli?* g

—

c

/W(t/lS3m A ^
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1463

LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

and

VIP LIMOUSINE SERVICES, LTD.; GLEN M. LEE, d/b/a VIP 

Limousine, Ltd.; LEE JAMES CRAWFORD,

Defendants - Appellees,

v.

DAVID SNYDER and MARY SNYDER, Personal Representatives of 

the estate of Michael C. Snyder,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, 

District Judge. (3:11-cv-00111-GMG)

Submitted: August 2, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

F. Samuel Byrer, Peter A. Pentony, LAW OFFICE OF F. SAMUEL 

BYRER, PLLC, Charles Town, West Virginia, for Appellants. 

Michael E. Lang, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN, Beaver, Pennsylvania, for 
2

Appellee Lancer Insurance Company. Daniel R. Schuda, Karen E. 

Klein, SCHUDA & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellees VIP Limousine Services, Ltd., and Glen M. Lee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Lancer Insurance Company (“Lancer”) brought this 

declaratory judgment action against VIP Limousine Service, Ltd.; 

Glen M. Lee d/b/a VIP Limousine, Ltd.; and David and Mary Snyder 

(“the Snyders”) as personal representatives of the estate of 

their deceased son Michael C. Snyder (“Michael”). In its 

action, Lancer sought a determination that it was not required 

to indemnify Lee Crawford for liability arising out of an 

accident that occurred when a vehicle Crawford was driving 

struck and killed Michael. The Snyders filed a counterclaim 

seeking to collect on a state-court judgment they had previously 

obtained against Crawford based on his negligence in causing the 

accident. The district court granted summary judgment against 

the Snyders and in favor of Lancer and the other parties. See

Lancer Ins. Co. v. VIP Limousine Serv., Ltd., No. 3:11-CV-111, 

2013 WL 937735 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 11, 2013). 

The Snyders now appeal. We have reviewed the record and 

have found no error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of 

the district court. See id. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
SUPREME COURT —APPELLATE DIVISION — FOURTH DEPARTMENT.

December, 1922.

#### THE PEOPLE v. GLEN JOHNSON.

Conviction fob sale of intoxicating liquob bevebsed — Alleged intoxicating LIQUOR WAS CIDER-INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT CIDER WAS INTOXICATING-EVIDENCE — OTHER SALES OF CIDER NOT MADE BY DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SHOWN-PROSECUTION IMPROPERLY PERMITTED TO IMPUTE TO DEFENDANT'S FATHER OFFENSES UNRELATED TO OFFENSE CHARGED.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court, rendered December 3, 1921, convicting the defendant under an *240indictment charging him with the sale of intoxicating liquor in violation of section 1212 of the Penal Law.*

*

 Added by Laws.of 1921, chap. 155, known as State Prohibition Act.— [Rep.

Per Curiam :

(1) The prosecution failed to establish by satisfactory evidence that the cider is intoxicating. The evidence upon that question was speculative and unconvincing. (2) The district attorney went beyond the bounds of legitimate, cross-examination in proving other transactions respecting the sale and disposition of cider not made by the defendant and not tending to prove the offense with which the defendant was charged. (3) The district attorney was also improperly permitted repeatedly to impute to the defendant’s father offenses unrelated to the offense charged after such imputation had been disproved by answers binding upon the prosecution. (4) There is also grave doubt of the sufficiency of the indictment in failing to allege that the defendant was not a holder of a permit from the Federal authorities as provided by section 1212 of the Penal Law which defines the offense of which the defendant was convicted. The question was raised on the trial but was not argued by either counsel upon the appeal. We, therefore, do not decide the question. The judgment of conviction should be reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted.

All concur.

Judgment of conviction reversed upon the law and facts and new trial granted.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
TRUSTBIZ, LLC, AS TRUSTEE ONLY, ) UNDER THE HC 15-9 LAND TRUST, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-1882 ) JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 20, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Wayne L. Cobb, Judge. Heather A. DeGrave of Walters Levine Klingensmith & Thomison, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Elliott B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel of Kula & Associates, P.A., Miami, for Appellee.

MORRIS, Judge. We affirm the trial court's order denying the motion to join or substitute as a real party in interest filed by Trustbiz, LLC. See Bonafide Props. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D158 (Fla. 2d DCA Jan. 13, 2016); Whitb urn, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 40 Fla. L. W eekly D2797 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 18, 2015). We dismiss-2- the portion of the appeal seeking review of the final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. See Mkt. Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So. 3d 31, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit
24.5 **POWER
OF ATTORNEY**
 
 
 WHEREAS,
CILCORP Inc., an Illinois corporation (herein referred to as the "Company"), is
required to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the
provi-sions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004; and
 
 WHEREAS,
each of the below undersigned holds the office or offices in the Company set
opposite his name;
 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Gary L.
Rainwater and/or Warner L. Baxter and/or Steven R. Sullivan and/or Martin J.
Lyons and/or Jerre E. Birdsong the true and lawful attorneys-in-fact of the
undersigned, for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, to affix
the name of the undersigned to said Form 10-K and any amendments thereto, and,
for the performance of the same acts, each with power to appoint in their place
and stead and as their substitute, one or more attorneys-in-fact for the
undersigned, with full power of revocation; hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact may do by virtue hereof.
 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 11th day of
February 2005:
 
 Gary
      L. Rainwater, Chairman, President,Chief
      Executive Officer and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)
    /s/
      G. L. RainwaterWarner
      L. Baxter, Executive Vice Presidentand
      Chief Financial Officer and Director(Principal
      Financial Officer)
    /s/
      Warner L. BaxterDaniel
      F. Cole, Director
    /s/
      Daniel F. ColeRichard
      A. Liddy, Director
    /s/
      Richard A. LiddySteven
      R. Sullivan, DirectorThomas
      R. Voss, Director
    /s/
      Thomas R, VossDavid
      A. Whiteley, Director
    /s/
      David A. WhiteleyMartin
      J. Lyons, Vice President and Controller(Principal
      Accounting Officer)
    /s/
      Martin J. Lyons
 
 
 STATE OF
MISSOUR )
 )
SS.
 CITY OF
ST. LOUIS )
 
 On this
11th day of February, 2005, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared the above-named officers and directors of
CILCORP Inc., known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the
foregoing power of attorney and acknowledged to me that they executed the same
as their free act and deed for the purposes therein stated.
 
 IN
TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official
seal.
 
 
 
 /s/ S. A.
Kitchens
 S. A.
Kitchens
 Notary
Public - Notary Seal
 STATE OF
MISSOURI
 St. Louis
County
 My
Commission Expires: July 9, 2007
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 05-13-01054-CR OFFENSE: 2.03

Lawan Navail Fisher v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Dallas

I9/-/5"

COA DISPOSITION: MODIFY TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 3

DATE: 12/11/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-1156688-J

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Lawan Navail Fisher v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPZllAUT's* Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE:

JUDGE: f,0A Uma*"^

CCA#: HMg

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE: .

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS ,''Ll1^0[>Y

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

4/21/2015 pgl K/f^ifi «SK| COA No. 05-13-01054-CR

FISHER, LAWAN NAVAIL Tr^Gft. NgSpJ-56688-J PD-0191-15

Pursuant to Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P>th@ire^ordlis"*returned to the court of appeals.

^^^^ Abel Acosta, Clerk

5TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

LISA MATZ

600 COMMERCE, 2ND FLOOR

DALLAS, TX 75202

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

ROOSEVEL T BA RNES, J R., Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00014- CR

Appea l from 411th District Court of Polk County , Texas (TC # 17,789)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Roosevelt Ba

rnes, J r. appea ls from an order deny ing h i s m otion for post-conviction DNA testing. We a ffirm.
I n 2005, a jury found Appellant g uilty of possession of coca ine with intent to deliver, found the enhanc emen t para g raphs true, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for 99
y ear s. The B eaumont Court of Appe als aff irmed the c onviction on November 1, 2006. Rooseve lt
Barnes v. State , No. 09-05-040- CR, 2006 WL 1109459 (Tex.App.--B eaumont November 1, 2006, pet. ref ’d)( n o t desig nated for publication). I n 2009, Appellant filed a motion for fore nsic DNA testing. See T E X .C O D E C R I M .P R O C .AN N
. art. 64.01 (West Supp. 2010). After revie wing the motion and the State’s response , the trial court denied the motion beca use it found that identity was not an issue in the case . Appellant filed notice of appe al. 1 Appellant’s court-a

ppointed counsel has fil ed a brief in which he has conclude d that the

T h i s c a s e w a s t r a n s f

e r r e d f r o m t h e N i n t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s t o t h e E i g h t h C o u r t o f A p p e a l s p u r s u a n t t o a 1 d o c k e t e q u a l i z a t i o n o r d e r i s s u e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f T e x a s
. S e e T E X
. G O V ’ T C O D E A N N
. § 7 3

. 0 0 1 ( W e s t 2 0 0 5 )

.appea l i s wh o l l y frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v.

Calif ornia, 386 U.S. 738, 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3, 87 S.Ct

. 1396, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L .Ed.2d 1377, 87 S.Ct

. 2094 (1967), by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion o f th e r e c o r d demonstrating why , i n eff ect, there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See High v. State, 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex.Cr i m
. App. 1978); Currie v. Stat e, 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jack son v. Stat e , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).
A copy of counsel’s bri ef has been delivere d to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ord and file a pro se brief. Appellant filed an objection to counsel’s motion to wit hdrawwhich we have c onsidered a s Appellant’s pro se brief.
We have car efully revie wed t h e re cord and the briefs of both counsel and Appellant, and
ag ree that the appea l is wholly frivolous and without mer it. Fur ther, we find nothing in the rec ord that might ar g uably

support the appe al. The judg ment is affirme d.

Fe bruar y 23, 2011 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice
Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Do Not Publish)
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
PARSNIPS 

SHAPES PERMISSIBLE IN U.S. NO. 1 GRADE 

September 1990 (Prev
PARSNIPS 

SHAPES PERMISSIBLE IN U.S. NO. 1 GRADE 

September 1990 (Prev
PARSNIPS 

SHAPES PERMISSIBLE IN U.S. NO. 2 GRADE 

September 1990 (Prev
PARSNIPS 

SHAPES PERMISSIBLE IN U.S. NO. 2 GRADE 

September 1990 (Prev
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL MANAGER

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

          Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
          ss.1350),  the  undersigned,  Linda  J.  Haines,  Principal  Financial
          Manager of  Nutrition  Management  Services  Company,  a  Pennsylvania
          corporation  (the "Company"),  does hereby certify,  to her knowledge,
          that:

          The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
          2004  of  the  Company  (the   "Report")   fully   complies  with  the
          requirements  of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange
          Act of  1934,  and the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly
          presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and
          results of operations of the Company.

                                                 /s/ Linda J. Haines
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Linda J. Haines
                                                 Principal Financial Manager

          January 12, 2005
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0233

_________________

IN THE MARRIAGE OF:

JASON C. MILLER,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 v.

ERIN O. MILLER,

 Respondent and Appellant,

and

CHRISTIAN F. MILLER,

 Intervenor and Appellee.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Leslie Halligan, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 6 2022

04/06/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0233
**                                                                                                                                Exhibit 32.1 **
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


 


 


Extension of Agreement to Organize


 


and


 


Operate A Joint Venture


 


Pursuant to ARTICLE X, TERMINATION, the Parties
hereto to that certain Agreement to Organize and Operate a Joint Venture dated June 14, 2018 (“Agreement”), hereby
agree to extend the Closing Date of the Agreement up to and including Monday, July 18, 2018.


 


All other terms of the Agreement remain in full
force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
duly executed this Agreement as of June 29, 2018.


 


 


Digital Power Lending, LLC


 


 


By:/s/ William Corbett______________


William Corbett, Manager


 


 


 


QPAGOS


 


 


By:/s/ Gaston Pereira________________


Gaston Pereira, Chief Executive Officer


 


 


 


Innovative Payment Systems, Inc.


 


 


By:/s/ Greg Rovner_________________


Greg Rovner
Opinion issued July 1 8 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 19
- 00362
- CR

——————————— CEDRICK JOHNSON , Appella nt

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1458792

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Cedrick Johnson, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 (a). See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.2(a). The State has not opposed this motion. We have not issued a decision in the appeal

.2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
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 aeroTelesis, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the
period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each of the  undersigned,  in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his 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 operation of the Company.

/s/ Jagan Narayanan
-------------------
Dr. Jagan Narayanan, CEO
Dated: July 10, 2004

/s/ Joseph Gutierrez
--------------------
Joseph Gutierrez, CFO
Dated: July 12, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-8003

___________

Richard Scott Rhinehart, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Extraordinary Writ

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, *

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: January 30, 2007

Filed: March 9, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, a member of the Iowa Bar and admitted to practice before this court,

was appointed by the United States District Court under the Criminal Justice Act

(CJA), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, to represent one Jesse John Wendelsdorf. Following the

completion of his duties of representation, plaintiff filed a CJA voucher claiming

payment for the services rendered.

Plaintiff states that the amount claimed was “summarily, arbitrarily, and

unilaterally cut without notice, hearing, justification or explanation” by the Chief

Judge of the Circuit, the Honorable James B. Loken. Plaintiff has filed what he has

styled “Motion for Hearing on CJA Fees,” asking that the court schedule a hearing on
-2-

the motion, to be followed by a review process along with an independent decision by

an unbiased arbitrator, following which plaintiff is to be restored to the legal fees to

which he is entitled.

We conclude that, for the reasons set forth in United States v. Johnson, 391 F.3d

946 (8th Cir. 2004), we are without jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s motion. The

chief judge’s role under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(3) is to rule upon requests for waiver

of the maximum amounts of compensation set forth in § 3006A(d)(2). As we held in

Johnson, “The role of the chief judge therefore relates to the management of funds,

and the decision to approve a recommendation for excess funds is entirely his

responsibility, not that of an appellate panel.” 391 F.3d at 948. We conclude that the

holding in Johnson applies with equal force to plaintiff’s motion. See also United

States v. Obasi, 435 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2006).

The motion is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________
88 P.3d 209

SUPREME COURT OF HAWAI'I

April 8, 2004

25703

#### Mahuna v. Civil Service Com’n of the Dept. of Civil Service

Affirmed