alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ )

DAFNEY CREWS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 12

- 1362 ( RWR )

)

NIANI DIXON, et al.

, )

)

Defendant s

. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, plaintiff filed a Complaint which, in

its entirety, stated:

I dont [sic] want Niani Dixon to come to 1302 Morris Rd [.] SE[.]

Mr [

. ] Jerry Crews do not live at this address[.] On 8/10/12 Mr.

Crews say he live in Maryland with her [.] I

. . . asked for a TPO

[sic] and I dont [sic] feel safe[.] I dont [sic] want her to call or

come by[.]

Compl. Defendant Niani Dixon removed the action to the Court on August 20, 2012, and on

August 28 , 2012, she filed under Federal R ule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) , (6) a motion to

dismiss the complaint . The Court advised the plaintiff of h er obligations u nder the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the motion, and specifically

warned plaintiff that, if s he did not respond to the motion by September 2 7, 2012, the Court may

treat the motion as conceded. T he plaintiff has n either filed an opposition to the motion nor

requested more time to do so. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendant Dixon ’s motion as

conceded.2 In addition, t he Court sua sponte will dismiss the complaint as to defendant Jerry

Crews

. “[ A ] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal

, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell

Atl. Corp. v. Two mbly , 550 U.S. 544, 570(2007) ) . A claim is facially plausible “when the

plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id . (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556).

Because the complaint neither alleges misconduct nor makes any demand for relief as to

defendant Crews , it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, it must

be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)

.

An Order acc ompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

S IGNED this 21st day of December , 201 2

.

/s/

RICHARD W. ROBERTS

United States District Judge
Exhibit 23.  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




       Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors
Capital City Bank Group, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-18557, No. 33-60113, No. 333-18543, No. 333-120242,
and No. 333-36693) on Form S-8 and No. 333-20683 on Form S-3D of
Capital City Bank Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 16, 2006, with
respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition of
Capital City Bank Group, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2005
and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareowners' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-
year period ended December 31, 2005, management's assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2005, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2005, which reports appear in
the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of Capital City Bank
Group, Inc.


KPMG LLP

Orlando, Florida
March 16, 2006
Certified Public Accountants
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Paul F. Walsh, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of eFunds Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):   a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.   Date: November 5, 2004 /s/ Paul F. Walsh  By: Paul F. Walsh Its: Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Agency for International Development

# AGENCY:

United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

# ACTION:

Notice of emergency OMB approval.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), USAID is requesting emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new data collection survey on employees of the Implementing Partners of USAID contracts in Afghanistan for the purpose of facilitating the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) Chief Of Mission (COM) approval process overseen by the Department of State.

# DATES:

USAID plans to collect this information starting from the second week of February, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Sulieman Hedayat, Management and Program Analyst, U.S. Agency for International Development Afghanistan Partner Relocation Task Force, by email at                         *afghansiv@usaid.gov*                         or by phone at 202-712-1914.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13, the Agency submitted a request for emergency approval to collect new information on the employment records of full-time Afghan employees from USAID contractors in Afghanistan.

*Description of Proposed Use of Information:*                     The information will include employee details such as dates of employment and contract number, which will be used to verify employment as part of the COM approval step of the SIV application process. This information will be collected via email through encrypted Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.                

*Estimated Time Burden:*                     The total amount of time estimated for this data collection is less than 1,000 hours (considered at 3 hours per partner for an estimated 300 contractors).                

Kevin Brownawell,

Executive Director, Afghan Partner Relocation Task Force USAID.

[FR Doc. 2024-02783 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.7



                                  AMENDMENT TO
                         AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF
                        ALTERNATIVE LIVING SERVICES, INC.

                      ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT
                            OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                              DATED AUGUST 3, 1998



         The second sentence of Section 3.15 of the Corporation's Restated
Bylaws is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

         "The members of the Executive Committee shall be the Corporation's
         Chairman, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (provided, however,
         that if none of such persons is a Sterling Director, the Board shall
         replace one of such persons with a Sterling Director), and each such
         person shall serve as a member of such committee for so long as he
         holds such office."
#### H. C. ALFORD, Appellant, v. Flora ALFORD, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 7, 1958.

*888Rodes K. Myers, Bowling Green, for appellant.

G. D. Milliken, Jr., Bowling Green, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellant husband sought an absolute divorce from appellee, his wife, and the latter counterclaimed for a divorce from bed and board. The Chancellor granted the relief prayed by the wife.

The husband’s complaint was filed on April 17, 1957, and alleged a cause of action based upon abandonment. The wife filed an answer on April 29. Some time later, without leave of court, the husband filed an amended complaint alleging cruel and inhuman treatment. Thereafter, without leave of court, the wife filed her counterclaim seeking a divorce from bed and board.

On the merits of the controversy raised by all the pleadings, the Chancellor found that the husband had failed to prove his right to a divorce, and that the wife had established the cause of action set up in her counterclaim. The evidence amply supported his conclusions, and his findings of fact are not shown to be clearly erroneous. CR 52.01.

In the course of its opinion the court indicated that the husband’s amended complaint should be dismissed because it was filed without leave of court, but he accepted the wife’s untimely counterclaim, which was subject to the same objection. Obviously both of these late pleadings should have been either rejected or accepted in like manner. However, as we read the Chancellor’s “Opinion and Findings”, he did consider the merits of the husband’s amended complaint, and therefore the procedural objections raised on this appeal do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. CR 61.01.

The husband further contends that the court improperly granted a divorce a mensa et thoro when it is apparent from the record that there is no hope of reconciliation. He cites Coleman v. Coleman, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 730, wherein we pointed out that a bed and board divorce is a poor arrangement, and should not be granted except in exceptional cases. However, the wife, who is the only party entitled to relief on this record, shows some reason why this type of divorce should be granted, and she did not ask for other relief. The husband cannot complain because he is not entitled to an absolute divorce either at his own instance or on the counterclaim of his wife. We find no error in the judgment in this respect.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM * THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
*Identify the financial statement(s) to be referenced in the legend:
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000725058
<NAME> CYTOGEN CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       7,401,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,640,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (576,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    443,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               289,000
<PP&E>                                      17,869,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (13,917,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,769,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,615,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       512,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,471,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,769,000
<SALES>                                      8,534,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,420,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,492,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            40,206,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             601,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (30,712,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (30,712,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,352,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (32,064,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.63)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   11-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           16584
<SECURITIES>                                     43000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      29425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7061640
<PP&E>                                          328022
<DEPRECIATION>                                  125963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7061640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2000000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         50
<COMMON>                                         10280
<OTHER-SE>                                     5051310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7061640
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (299)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (299)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (299)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30762 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ZELBONY O. TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:07-CR-109-6

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorn e y a p p o i nt e d t o represent Zelbony O. Taylor has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Ca l if o r n i a , 386 U

. S

. 7 3 8 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Taylor has filed a response. To the extent that Taylor raises claims of ineffective assistance o f c o u n s e l , th e r e c o r d i s i n s u f f i c i e n tly developed to allow consideration of those claims; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] [have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 17 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30762 Document: 00511823986 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012No. 11-30762

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwel l , 4 7 0 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Taylor’ s response. We concur with

c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s sment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for app e l l a t e review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further r e sponsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-30762 Document: 00511823986 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DEBBIE HUGHEY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANDORRA WOODS

HEALTHCARE CENTER, GALLAGHER

BASSETT SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN

INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED

EMPLOYER'S GUARANTY FUND, AND REST HAVEN NURSING CENTER),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 133 EM 2017

DEBBIE HUGHEY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANDORRA WOODS

HEALTHCARE CENTER, GALLAGHER

BASSETT SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN

INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED

EMPLOYER'S GUARANTY FUND, AND REST HAVEN NURSING CENTER),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 134 EM 2017

DEBBIE HUGHEY,

Petitioner

v. :

:

:

:

:

: No. 135 EM 2017[ 133

- 138 EM 2017 ]

- 2

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (REST HAVEN NURSING

CENTER WHITEMARSH INC.,

GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,

ANDORRA WOODS HEALTHCARE, ACE

AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

AND UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S GUARANTY FUND CENTER),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

DEBBIE HUGHEY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (REST HAVEN NURSING

CENTER WHITEMARSH INC.,

GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,

ANDORRA WOODS HEALTHCARE, ACE

AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

AND UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S GUARANTY FUND CENTER),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 136 EM 2017

DEBBIE HUGHEY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ANDORRA WOODS

HEALTHCARE CENTER, GALLAGHER

BASSETT SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN

INSURANCE COMPANY, UNINSURED

EMPLOYER'S GUARANTY FUND, AND :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 137 EM 2017[ 133

- 138 EM 2017 ]

- 3

REST HAVEN NURSING CENTER),

Respondents :

:

:

DEBBIE HUGHEY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY, ANDORRA WOODS

HEALTHCARE CENTER, ESIS

NORTHEAST WC CLAIMS, UNINSURED EMPLOYER'S GUARANTY FUND),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 138 EM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of January , 2018, the Petition for Review is DENIED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO RICO ANGELES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70039 

Agency No. A031-249-743 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2018

**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Antonio Rico Angeles, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro 

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo legal claims regarding United States 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 13 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70039 

citizenship. Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752, 755 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the 

petition for review.

The agency did not err in determining that Rico Angeles did not establish 

eligibility for United States citizenship, where he was born in 1959 in the 

Philippines to two citizens of the Philippines, his father never obtained United 

States citizenship, and his mother obtained United States citizenship in 1980 when 

he was no longer under the age of eighteen. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401 (1959), 1432 

(1980); Minasyan v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (derivative 

citizenship is determined under the law in effect at time the critical events giving 

rise to eligibility occurred); Hughes, 255 F.3d at 760 (8 U.S.C. § 1431 granted 

automatic citizenship only to those children who were under the age of 18, and 

who met the other criteria, on February 27, 2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.