alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3500

___________ JacQaus L. Martin, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Scott Hayne; Layne Gissler; Mark * District of Nebraska. Thompson; Scott Wayman; Unknown * Officer Riech; Randy Crosby; Will * Curtis; Barry Lovke; Frank X. Hopkins, * [UNPUBLISHED] Michael Kenny, * * Defendants-Appellees. *

___________ No. 03-4000

___________ JacQaus L. Martin, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Frankie White, C.W.; Layne Gissler, * C.W.; Mikel I. Balderson, Cpl.; Larry * Pankoke, Cpl.; Scott Hayne, Sgt.; * Mark Thompson, C.W.; Scott Wayman, * Cpl.; Otha Lee Serrell; Michael * Kenny, *-2- * Defendants-Appellees. *

___________ No. 04-2448

___________ JacQaus L. Martin, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Scott E. Hayne; Matthew R. Zier; * Scott S. Wagman; Raymond J. * Edleman; David Boli; Ortha Lee * Serrell; Michael Kenny; Nebraska * Department of Correctional Services, * * Defendants-Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 22, 2004 Filed: July 29, 2004

___________ Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The above three appeals are consolidated in order to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis.-3- This appeal arises out of the Plaintiff’s Complaints that he was sexually assaulted in the year 2000 by prison guards. Three different courts have denied Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis. In case No. 04-2448, the district court held that Plaintiff could not proceed in forma pauperis under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) because the appeal was not taken in good faith. As pointed out by the district court, the Plaintiff’s appeal was not taken in good faith because the Defendants’ summary judgment motion was pending before the district court. We agree and therefore hold Plaintiff may not pro ceed in forma pauperis in case No. 04-2448. In cases No. 03-3500 and 03-4000, the Plaintiff appeals, pro se, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. In both cases the district courts applied 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which prohibits the granting of in forma pauperis status to a prisoner who has had three or more actions or appeals dismissed on the grounds that the actions or appeals were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. In both cases the district courts found that the Plaintiff did not satisfy § 1915(g). We affirm the district courts’ orders in both instances. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 
10-K FOR  THE  PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS  
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<S>                          <C>      <C>         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,151
<SECURITIES>                                 3,013
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,299
<PP&E>                                         735 <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,057
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         7
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,088
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,145 <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,687)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,687)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,687)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (1.08) <F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (1.08)
        

<FN>
<F1>    Item show net of depreciation, net of depreciation, consistent with
        the balance sheet presentation.
<F2>    Item consists of research and development.
<F3>    Item consists of basic earnings per share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 6529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01962]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; HHS-NIH-CDC-SBIR PHS 2024-1 Phase 
I: Point-of-Care HIV Viral Load and Drug Adherence Assays (Topic 
001).
    Date: February 26, 2024.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G21A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).
    Contact Person: Shiv A. Prasad, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G21A, 
Rockville, MD 20852, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#46352e2f306836342735272206282f2e68212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90e3f8f9e6bee0e2f1e3f1f4d0fef9f8bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 26, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-01962 Filed 1-31-24; 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>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 ICG Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Randall Curran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of
         the Company.

Date:  March 26, 2003      /S/ RANDALL E. CURRAN
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                           Randall E. Curran
                           Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 360 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 360

   To amend title 23, United States Code, to eliminate the penalties 
    imposed on States for noncompliance with motorcycle helmet and 
      automobile safety belt requirements, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 7 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

 Mr. Smith (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Kempthorne) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 23, United States Code, to eliminate the penalties 
    imposed on States for noncompliance with motorcycle helmet and 
      automobile safety belt requirements, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH MOTORCYCLE 
              HELMET AND AUTOMOBILE SAFETY BELT REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 153 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking subsection (h); and
            (2) by redesignating subsections (i) through (k) as 
        subsections (h) through (j), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 8223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02326]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 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 Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; HIGH IMPACT NIDDK 
APPLICATIONS RC2.
    Date: March 21, 2024.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, Suite 
7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ryan G. Morris, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDDK, 
National Institutes of Health, Room 7015, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-594-4721, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a68637b74347775686873695a747372347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5d7dcc4cb8bc8cad7d7ccd6e5cbcccd8bc2cad3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 31, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02326 Filed 2-5-24; 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>
#### Julian Ray MADELEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29100.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 19, 1957.

*799No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, and Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

On March 23, 1956, appellant was assessed a term of four years in the penitentiary, upon a plea of guilty before the court, for the offense of felony theft. Sentence was pronounced and tire execution thereof was suspended and appellant was released on probation.

One of the conditions of the probation was that appellant was not to violate the law of this state or of the United States.

On February 8, 1957, hearing was had on the State’s motion to revoke the probation for violation of said condition, and the trial court entered order finding that appellant had violated the terms of his probation and ordered that the judgment and sentence become operative.

This is an appeal from the order revoking the probation.

Proof was offered at the hearing on February 8th showing that on September 17, 1956, a place of business was burglarized and some checks were stolen, one of which was identified as having been forged by signing the name of a fictitious person as maker.

Appellant was identified as having said forged check in his possession and of attempting to pass it as true.

The trial court did not abuse his discretion in revoking appellant’s probation.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Hale WAGERS, Appellant, v. B. F. WHITE et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 18, 1955.

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1955.

T. T. Burchell, Manchester, for appellant.

Lyttle & White, Manchester, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Clay. Circuit Court dismissing the complaint seeking damages for alleged trespass. The facts, questions raised, authorities cited and applicable law have been carefully considered by the court, and we find no prejudicial error.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
Número i dentificador

RES20 2 4

_

_________________ ESTADO LIBRE ASOCIADO DE PUERTO RICO

TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

PANEL V

HILDA SANTIAGO ÁLVAREZ,

Recurrida

,

v.

DAVID DÁVILA PAGÁN ; ROSA IDALIA RÍOS SÁNCHEZ

,

Peticionaria

,

ATABEY CAPITAL, LLC,

Interventora. KLCE2 02 400 371 CERTIORARI procedente de l Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Bayamón

.

C ivil n úm.:

D DP2016

- 0662

.

Sobre: acción civil; incumplimiento de contrato; daños y perjuicios

.

HILDA SANTIAGO ÁLVAREZ,

Recurrida

,

v.

DAVID DÁVILA PAGÁN ; ROSA IDALIA RÍOS SÁNCHEZ,

Peticionaria

. KLCE202 400374 CERTIORARI procedente de l Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Bayamón.

Civil núm.:

D DP2016

- 0662.

Sobre: acción civil; incumplimiento de contrato; daños y perjuicios.

Panel integrado por su president e

, e l j uez Hernández Sánchez , la j ueza Romero García y la jueza Martínez Cordero

.

Romero García, jueza ponente.

RESOLUCIÓN

En San Juan, Puerto Rico, a 23 de mayo de 202 4.

Los recursos consolidados del título pretenden que revisemos la

misma Resolución dictada el 6 de febrero de 2024, notificada el 9 de febrero

de 2024, por el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Sala Superior de Bayamón.

Ambos peticionarios; a decir, la abogada

- n otaria Rosa I. Ríos Sánchez, y

el señor David Dávila Pagán, arguyen que el foro primario debió disponer

sumariamente de las sendas reclamaciones en su contra.KLCE202400371 cons. con el

KLCE 20 2 40037 4 2

Evaluados los recursos y los documentos que les fueran adjuntados,

así como la resolución recurri da, denegamos la expedición del auto 1

.

N otifíquese

.

Lo acordó el Tribunal y lo certifica la s ecretaria del Tribunal de

Apelaciones.

Lcda. Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Secretaria del Tribunal de Apelaciones

1 Véase , Regla 52.1 de las de Procedimiento Civil, 32 LPRA Ap. V, y la Regla 40 del Reglamento de este Tribunal de Apelaciones, 4 LPRA Ap. XXII

- B.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                                         THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                                     INFORMATION EXTRACTRD FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
                                   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ITS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                                         ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                                                                      STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                  724904
<NAME>                         ARIZONA INSTRUMENT CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1
<CURRENCY>                                       U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                                143,173
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       4,269,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                          279,000
<INVENTORY>                                         2,556,992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    6,740,299
<PP&E>                                              3,440,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     11,591,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               4,183,316
<BONDS>                                                93,445
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                               67,747
<OTHER-SE>                                          7,467,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       11,591,716
<SALES>                                            15,232,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   15,245,031
<CGS>                                               7,885,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       8,188,932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    138,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (967,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (366,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (601,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       (636,799)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1,238,520)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.19)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50656

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE TEPEZANO-AVILA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CR-301-ALL

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Tepezano-Avila (Tepezano), federal prisoner # 85628-

080, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, wherein he argued that Amendment 668 to the

Sentencing Guidelines should be applied to the calculation of his

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3).

Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines may not be applied

retroactively upon a motion under § 3582(c)(2) unless they are

specifically set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c). See U.S.S.G.
No. 05-50656

-2-

§ 1B1.10(a), p.s. (Nov. 2005). Amendment 668 is not listed in

§ 1B1.10(c) and therefore may not be applied retroactively under

Tepezano’s motion. See United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218

(5th Cir. 1996)(amendment not listed in § 1B1.10(c) “cannot be

given retroactive effect in the context of a § 3582(c)(2)

motion”). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its

discretion when it denied Tepezano’s § 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

SEPTEMBER 4, 2014

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b).

1. Case No. SD32911

Re: STATE OF MISSOURI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. DAVID MICHAEL HAMILTON,

Defendant-Appellant.