alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7275
JAVAN FREDRICK MAYS, a/k/a Von Frederick Mayes , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN SCOTT LEWIS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 4:18

- cv - 03234

- JFA )

Submitted : May 29, 2020 Decided: June 11, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Javan Fredrick Mays , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Javan Fredrick Mays seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (201 8 ). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Mays that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is
necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985);

see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 154

- 55 (1985). Although Mays received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Se e Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the tru e ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and3 legal contentions a re adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 15

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Superior Uniform Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, as indicated in our report dated October 21, 2009; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-105906, effective June 6, 2003).

We also are aware
that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



|                
|----------------
|Tampa, Florida  
|October 21, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27150]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:20 a.m. on 
Tuesday, October 17, 2000, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Ellen S. Seidman 
(Director, Office of thrift Supervision), concurred in by Director John 
D. Hawke, Jr. (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Donna Tanoue, 
that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on 
less than seven days' notice to the public; that no notice earlier than 
October 12, 2000, of the meeting was practicable; that the public 
interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open 
to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a 
closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), 
(c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii) and (c)(9)(B) of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and 
(c)(9)(B)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.

    Dated: October 17, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James D. LaPierre,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27150 Filed 10-18-00; 12:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 21



                            Subsidiaries of GSV, Inc

1)  Cybershop LLC, a New Jersey corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of GSV,
    Inc. (the "Company").

2)  Electronics.net, LLC, a New Jersey corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
    the Company.

3)  M.G. Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
    the Company.




<PAGE>




                                                                     Schedule II



                        VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                         Allowance for Doubtful Accounts


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Balance at        Charged to
                                                  Beginning          Costs and                           Balance at
                                                   of Year           Expenses          Deductions       End of Year
                                                   -------           --------          ----------       -----------
<S>                              <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
For the year ending December 31, 1997              $10,000           $  11,000         $  (11,000)       $  10,000
For the year ending December 31, 1998              $10,000           $   1,000         $  ( 6,000)       $   5,000
For the year ending December 31, 1999              $ 5,000           $ 262,000         $ (161,000)       $ 106,000
</TABLE>
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0794**
Exhibit
23





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-114120 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. Employee
Stock Purchase Plan and in Registration Statement No. 333-143400 pertaining to
the Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. Amended and Restated 1998 Stock Option Plan of
our report dated March 22, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2009.





Crowe Horwath LLP





Cleveland,
Ohio


March 23,
2010
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2860 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2860

  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Inspector 
 General of the Office of Personnel Management may use amounts in the 
   revolving fund of the Office to fund audits, investigations, and 
             oversight activities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2013

  Mr. Farenthold (for himself and Mr. Lynch) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Inspector 
 General of the Office of Personnel Management may use amounts in the 
   revolving fund of the Office to fund audits, investigations, and 
             oversight activities, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``OPM IG Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT REVOLVING FUND FOR 
              AUDITS, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES.

    Subsection (e) of section 1304 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by adding before the period at the 
        end of the first sentence the following: ``, and for the cost 
        of audits, investigations, and oversight activities, conducted 
        by the Inspector General of the Office, of the fund and the 
        activities financed by the fund''; and
            (2) in paragraph (5)--
                    (A) by striking ``The Office'' and inserting ``(A) 
                The Office''; and
                    (B) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Such budget shall include an estimate from 
                the Inspector General of the Office of the amount 
                required to pay the expenses to audit, investigate, and 
                provide other oversight activities with respect to the 
                fund and the activities financed by the fund.
                    ``(C) The amount requested by the Inspector General 
                under subparagraph (B) shall not exceed .33 percent of 
                the total budgetary authority requested by the Office 
                under subparagraph (A).''.
                                 <all>
```
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2431

_____________________________
J OHN O SBORN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

. March 7, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

John Osborn, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. JESUS ESCOBOZA

- SOTO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 50265
D.C. No. 3:18

- cr - 01099

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges

. Jesus Escoboza

- Soto appeals from the district court ’ s judgment and challenges the 33

- month sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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). 

# F ILED

FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 50265

Escoboza

- Soto contends that the district court erred by granting only a one

level fast

- track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1, rather than the four

- level departure requested by the parties , and imposing a sentence at the low end of the resulting Guidelin es calculation . “In analyzing challenges to a court’s upward and downward departures to a specific offense characteristic or other adjustment under Section 5K, we do not evaluate them for procedural correctness, but rather, as part of a sentence’s substan tive reasonableness.” United States v. Ellis , 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir. 2011). T he district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Escoboza

- Soto’s sentence. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The
33

- month sentence is substanti vely reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances articulated by the district
court , including Escoboza

- Soto’s serious criminal history , numerous prior deportations, and failure to be deterred desp ite receiving a fast

- track departure for a previous illegal reentry offense

. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 51

. AFFIRMED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              30
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         43
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,511
<PP&E>                                           4,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,438
<BONDS>                                            977
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,651
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,425
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    164
<INCOME-TAX>                                        63
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                101
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       101
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2841 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2841

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of 
Defense affords each member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
   with the opportunity for a physical examination before the member 
                    separates from the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2013

  Mr. Rahall introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of 
Defense affords each member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces 
   with the opportunity for a physical examination before the member 
                    separates from the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Guard and Reserve Equal Access to 
Health Act''.

SEC. 2. PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF A RESERVE COMPONENT WHO 
              ARE SEPARATING FROM THE ARMED FORCES.

    Section 1145 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Physical Examinations for Members of a Reserve Component.--
(1) The Secretary concerned shall provide a physical examination 
pursuant to subsection (a)(5) to each member of a reserve component 
who--
            ``(A) will not otherwise receive such an examination under 
        such subsection; and
            ``(B) elects to receive such a physical examination.
    ``(2) The Secretary concerned shall--
            ``(A) provide the physical examination under paragraph (1) 
        to a member during the 90-day period before the date on which 
        the member is scheduled to be separated from the armed forces; 
        and
            ``(B) issue orders to such a member to receive such 
        physical examination.
    ``(3) A member may not be entitled to health care benefits pursuant 
to subsection (a), (b), or (c) solely by reason of being provided a 
physical examination under paragraph (1).
    ``(4) In providing to a member a physical examination under 
paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned shall provide to the member a 
record of the physical examination.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MANU SORENSEN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-10389

D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00030-LEK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 13, 2016** 

Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Manu Sorensen appeals from the revocation of supervised release and the

11-month sentence imposed upon revocation. Pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sorensen’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no

grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have

FILED

APR 18 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
provided Sorensen the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se

supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. 

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 15-10389
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0369 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MALCOLM JOSEPH NEWROBE, SR. ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**G RANT**  Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until February 24 , 202 1 , to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 12 2021

01/12/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0369
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2861 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2861

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to retain and redistribute 
                  certain amounts collected as fines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2013

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to retain and redistribute 
                  certain amounts collected as fines.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF FUNDS.

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall retain amounts collected 
for safety-related fines, and shall distribute those amounts to 
counties for maintaining radiological emergency preparedness plans 
required in connection with the nuclear facility with respect to which 
the fines were collected.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VINCENT LEACH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 596 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### KING v. STATE.

No. 22542.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 9, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1943.

J. M. Parker, of Gorman, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing for the purpose of sale whisky in Eastland County, a dry area, punishment, a fine of $325.

No bills of exception or statement of facts are in the record. The jurisdiction of the County Court was not challenged at the time of trial,'and we find no brief presenting the question in this case. The point was raised by brief in No. 22541 against the same appellant. Tex.Cr.App., 174 S.W.2d 266. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in that case the judgment here is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled, for the reasons set forth in the opinion on motion for rehearing in King v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 174 S.W.2d 266, this day decided.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.