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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6329

JOHN MARVIN BALLARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AMY PHENIX,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:13-ct-03256-H)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Marvin Ballard, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Patrick Edgerton, 

Francis Lachicotte Zemp, Jr., ROBERTS & STEVENS, PA, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Marvin Ballard appeals the district court’s order 

granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss his diversity action 

alleging claims of libel, slander, invasion of privacy, and 

intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although 

we modify the dismissal order to reflect that the dismissal is 

without prejudice, see S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, 

Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 & n.4 

(4th Cir. 2013), we affirm the dismissal as modified. Ballard 

v. Phenix, No. 5:13-ct-03256-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 3, 2015). 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 AS MODIFIED
#### ADAMS v. STATE.

No. 25578.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1952.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the penalty assessed is a fine of $100.

The transcript before us contains no notice of appeal, in the absence of which this court is without authority to consider the appeal. It is therefore dismissed.
#### Ex parte PITRUCHA.

No. 26383.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1953.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

This is an application for habeas corpus originally presented to this court.

Relator, an inmate of the penitentiary, is serving a sentence of not less than five nor more than fifteen years for rape. The sentence is regular in form.

The attack is upon the judgment upon which the sentence was pronounced. It recites that, upon a jury trial, appellant’s punishment was assessed at fifteen years in the penitentiary, but erroneously provides that relator shall be punished by confinement in the State Penitentiary for a term of “not less than five years nor more than fifteen years”.

The defect in the judgment is such as could have been corrected on appeal under the provisions of art. 847 C.C.P. Judgments containing a similar defect were reformed on appeal in Slusser v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 232 S.W.2d 727, 732, and in Ellison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 235 S.W.2d 157. The judgment is therefore not void and is not subj ect to attack in this collateral proceeding.

The cases of Ex parte East, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 123, 225 S.W.2d 833, Ex parte Traxler, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 661, 184 S.W.2d 286, and Edwards v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 219 S.W.2d 1022, cited by appellant, are not applicable.

Relator’s punishment was assessed by the jury at a definite term of fifteen years. Art. 698 C.C.P. required the entry of a judgment upon that verdict.

The application for writ of habeas corpus is refused.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 3 A0 01 3

. PEACHTREE TALLULAH, LLC v

. SNAPFI NGER PROPERTI ES
OF MARI ETTA, LLC.

Fo l l owi n g th e v ol un t ary d i s m i s s al o f al l cl ai m s an d co u n t ercl ai m s i n t h i s ci v i l

cas e, t h e d efen dan t

, Peach t ree Tal l u l ah

, L L C, fi led a m o t i o n fo r at t orn ey fees

p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4

. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed th e m o t io n , an d Peach t ree

Tal l ul ah fi l ed t h is d i rect ap p eal . W e, h owev er, l ack ju ri s d ict i o n

.

“ [A] n ap p l icat i o n fo r [a d i s cret i o n ary ] ap p eal i s req u i red wh en ‘ t h e un d erl y i n g

s u b ject m at t er’ o f t h e ap p eal i s l i s t ed i n OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a)[.] ” Avr en v. Ga rt en , 2 8 9

Ga. 1 8 6

, 1 9 2 (7 ) (7 1 0 SE2 d 1 30 ) (2 0 1 1 ). T he u nd erl y i n g su b j ect m at t er o f t h i s ap p eal

— th e award o f at t o rn ey fees p u rs u an t t o O CGA § 9

- 1 5

- 1 4

— is l i s t ed i n OCGA §

5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 0 ). See al s o Swa n s o n v. S wa n so n , 2 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 4 0 6

, 4 0 6 (4 5 4 SE2 d 5 2 9 )
(1 9 9 5) (o n m o t io n fo r reco n si d erat io n ) ( OC G A § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 0 ) req u i res a p art y

s eek i n g t o ap p eal t he d en i al o f i t s m o t i o n f o r a t t o rn ey fees un d er OCGA § 9 -1 5 -1 4

t o fi l e an ap p l i cat i o n fo r a d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal ). Peach t ree Tal l u l ah , t h erefo re, was

req u i red t o fo l l o w t h e d i s cret i o nary ap p eal pro ced u re, an d i ts fai l u re t o do s o d ep ri v es

u s o f ju ri s d i ct io n. Ca

p r i co r n S ys t ems v. Go d

a va r th y , 2 5 3 Ga. A p p

. 84 0

, 8 4 1 (5 6 0

SE2 d 7 3 0) (2 0 0 2). Acco rd i ng l y , t hi s ap p eal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED. August 11, 2022C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.
W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 08/11/2022
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3240 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3240

 To instruct the Comptroller General of the United States to study the 
            impact of Regulation D, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2013

  Mr. Pittenger (for himself and Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To instruct the Comptroller General of the United States to study the 
            impact of Regulation D, 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 ``Regulation D Study Act''.

SEC. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY.

    (a) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
conduct a comprehensive study on the impact on depository institutions, 
consumers, and monetary policy of the requirement that depository 
institutions maintain reserves in accordance with subsections (b) and 
(c) of section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461) and 
Regulation D (12 C.F.R. 204).
    (b) Matters To Be Studied.--In conducting the study under this 
section, the Comptroller General shall include the following:
            (1) An historic review of how the Board of Governors of the 
        Federal Reserve System has used reserve requirements to conduct 
        United States monetary policy, including information on how and 
        when the Board of Governors has changed the required reserve 
        ratio.
            (2) The impact of the maintenance of reserves on depository 
        institutions, including the operational requirements and 
        associated costs.
            (3) The impact on consumers in managing their accounts, 
        including the costs and benefits of the reserving system.
            (4) Alternatives the Board of Governors may have to the 
        maintenance of reserves to effect monetary policy.
    (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study under this section, the 
Comptroller General shall consult with credit unions and community 
banks.
    (d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 
containing--
            (1) the results of the study conducted pursuant to this 
        section; and
            (2) any recommendations based on such study.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50947 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAIME ARANDA-LUGO, also known as Jaime Lugo-Aranda, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-99-CR-420-ALL-H

-------------------- June 15, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jaime Aranda-Lugo appeals from his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the district court erred by admitting evidence that he had been deported on three prior occasions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Evidence of Aranda-Lugo’s repeated prior re-entries and deportations tended to prove that Aranda-Lugo intended to enter the United States on the instant occasion. See United States v. Osum , 943 F.2d 1394, 1404 (5th Cir. 1991). The district courtNo. 99-50947 -2-did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of ArandaLugo’s prior deportations. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Tidelands Bancshares, Inc.(the “Company”), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of thiscertification:

 

1.              The annual report of the Company for theperiod ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on this date (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.              The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert E. Coffee, Jr. |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Robert E.  Coffee, Jr.    |
|   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|   | February 22, 2010         |
|   |
|   |
|   | /s/ Alan W. Jackson            |
|   | Alan W. Jackson                |
|   | Chief Financial Officer        |
|   | February 22, 2010         |

 

----
'i)c~'T-o,5;T- \~ cn- d- '10 lc.

bc:n-- cs T - Iq(t--1-d~-::9l

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

David Gurr

EAS COST)

DOT-OST-1997-2706

Thursday, August 22, 2013 3: 18:03 PM

I would like to protest the change from great lakes to sky west we travel to Denver

for work all the time on great lakes this would be an inconvenience for the oil and

gas people in vernal.

Thanks

David Gurr

JD Field Services

4357811242

1,...__''')

Sent from my Android
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27414]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

DATE: Weeks of October 23, 30, November 6, 13, 20, and 27, 2000.

PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   

Week of October 23

Monday, October 23

3:00
    Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)
    a: Final Rules--10 CFR Part 35, ``Medical Use of Byproduct 
Material'' and 10 CFR Part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against 
Radiation''

Week of October 30--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 30.

Week of November 6--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of November 6.

Week of November 13--Tentative

Friday, November 17

9:25 a.m.
    Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (If needed)
9:30 a.m.
    Briefing on Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan (Public 
Meeting) (Contact: Tom King, 301-415-5790)
    This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--www.nrc.gov/
live.html.

Week of November 20--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of November 20

Week of November 27--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of November 27.
    *The schedule for commission meetings is subject to change on short 
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415-
1292.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bill Hill (301) 415-1661.
    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/schedule.htm.
    This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; 
if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to it, 
please contact the Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations Branch, 
Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1661). In addition, distribution of this 
meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are 
interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule 
electronically, please send an electronic message to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d5a40456d435f4e034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2b5afaa82acb0a1eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a> or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#482c233f08263a2b662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e3ecf0c7e9f5e4a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 20, 2000.
William M. Hill, Jr.,
SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27414 Filed 10-20-00; 2:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### POGUE v. STATE.

No. 23418.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 5, 1946.

Earl Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol, the punishment assessed being a fine of $100.

The complaint and information properly charge the offense. The record before this court contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

CERTIFICATION pursuant to Section 906 of the 

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

In connection with this annual report of Essex Portfolio, L.P. (the"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Michael J. Schall, Chief Financial Officer of EssexProperty Trust, Inc., the general partner of the registrant Essex Portfolio,L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

	(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

	(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

 

 

 

Date: March 31, 2003

/s/ Michael J. Schall
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0445 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-098-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 109 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent a workload situation whereby stabilizing 

the helicopter in flight would be difficult if not impossible, resulting in possible loss of helicopter 

control.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $0

Labor per Helicopter

(0.2 work-hour x $85/workhour to place the AD in the 

RFM limitations section.)

$17

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $17

Total US Fleet Cost $1,853

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: George Schwab
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before GASTON, HOUTZ, and MYERS Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Ambronsio W. SUAREZ Fireman Recruit ( E

- 1 ), U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 202 200 0 75

_________________________
Decided: 15 June 2022
Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judge : Jo n athan T. Stephens (arraignment) Angela J. Tang (trial)

Sentence adjudged 2 December 2021 by a general court

- martial convened at Naval Station Great Lakes, Illin oi s , consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : confinement for 21 months, forfeiture of all pay and allowance s, and a bad

- conduct discharge.
For Appellant:

C ommander Kyle C. Kneese, JAGC, USNUnited States v. Suarez , NMCCA No. 20 2 200 0 75 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted withou t assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 1
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

KYLE D. MEEDER Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-3717-001]

Take notice that on October 18, 2000, Mirabito Gas & Electric, Inc., tendered for filing an amendment to its Petition for Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority filed with the Commission on September 19, 2000, in the above-referenced Docket.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or November 8, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at ­                    *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27778 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
32.1





ESSEX
PORTFOLIO, L.P.


Certification
of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Keith R. Guericke,
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-K”) of Essex Portfolio, L.P.
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in
the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Essex Portfolio, L.P. at the dates of and for the
periods presented.

















Date:
February 28,
2008                                                       /s/ Keith R.
Guericke


Keith R. Guericke


Chief Executive Officer and
President,


Director
and Vice Chairman of the Board,


Essex
Property Trust, Inc., general partner


of Essex
Portfolio, L.P.