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

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 23 - 60369 Summary Calendar

____________ Akecheta Morningstar, PH.D, Plaintiff
— Appellant , versus St. Dominic - Jackson Memorial Hospital; Dr. Sagar Patel; Global Medical Response, Defendants
— Appellees .

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Sout hern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:22 - CV - 410

______________________________ Before Jones, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges . Per Curiam : * Akecheta Morningstar, P H .D., seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and in denying his motion for leave to amend hi s complaint. Because Morningstar has not demonstrated that he will raise a

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir . R . 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 30, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-60369 Document: 00517050287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2024No. 23 - 60369

2 nonfrivolous issue on appeal, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED . See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997) . Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED . See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Morningstar’s motions to void the district court’s order dismissing his complaint and to recuse certain judges of this court are DENIED . Case: 23-60369 Document: 00517050287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 241 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 241

     Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the railroad 
                           retirement system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 1994

Mr. Pete Geren of Texas submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the railroad 
                           retirement system.

Whereas the railroad industry is acknowledged as the originator of private 
        company pensions in the United States;
Whereas, in the 1930s, the United States Congress assumed the responsibility for 
        developing a federally administered retirement program to place the 
        various railroad pension plans on a solid financial basis;
Whereas the railroad retirement system today covers over 1,500,000 individuals 
        who have contributed over the years in good faith and who have 
        legitimate expectations of receiving their benefits;
Whereas the National Performance Review in its report, ``From Red Tape to 
        Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less'', 
        proposes to transfer the functions of the Railroad Retirement Board to 
        the Social Security Administration, to other Federal agencies, and to 
        ``private section service providers'';
Whereas this proposal would privatize and terminate a program that has worked 
        well and provided retirement security to millions of people for nearly 
        60 years;
Whereas current and future railroad retirement beneficiaries vehemently oppose 
        the transfer;
Whereas this action threatens to disrupt earned and needed benefits for 
        1,500,000 active, retired, and disabled rail workers and their families; 
        and
Whereas this proposal would adversely affect all active and retired railroad 
        employees and their families in the great State of Texas and nationwide: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) a continued Federal commitment to the railroad 
        retirement system is essential to assure the integrity of the 
        railroad retirees' benefits; and
            (2) the preservation of the present structure of the 
        railroad retirement system, including the administrative 
        framework of the Railroad Retirement Board, is necessary to 
        fulfill the time-honored responsibility of the Federal 
        Government.

                                 <all>
```
#### PIERCE v. STATE.

No. 25168.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for theft with a penalty of four years in the penitentiary.

The record brought forward contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exceptions. The proceedings appear regular and no question is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2922 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 186
113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2922

                          [Report No. 113-259]

 To extend the authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect court 
             officials away from the Supreme Court grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

  Mr. Holding (for himself, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Coble, Mr. Watt, and Mr. 
   Marino) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                           November 12, 2013

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect court 
             officials away from the Supreme Court grounds.

 

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PROTECT 
              COURT OFFICIALS OFF SUPREME COURT GROUNDS.

    Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2019''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 186

113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2922

                          [Report No. 113-259]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To extend the authority of the Supreme Court Police to protect court 
             officials away from the Supreme Court grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 12, 2013

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements of Berthel Growth & Income Trust I
as of March 31, 2000, and the three months ended March 31, 2000, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,290
<SECURITIES>                                15,337,366
<RECEIVABLES>                                  194,298
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,819,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,852,857
<BONDS>                                      7,800,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,166,709<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,391
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               130,214
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             129,710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                292,217
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            292,217
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   292,217
<EPS-BASIC>                                      27.72<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    27.72<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Net Assets
<F2>Net Income per Beneficial Share Based on Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
which was 10,541
</FN>


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 131 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 131

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 8, 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Designating December 7 of each year as ``National Pearl Harbor 
                           Remembrance Day''.

Whereas, on December 7, 1941, the Imperial Japanese Navy and Air Force attacked 
        units of the armed forces of the United States stationed at Pearl 
        Harbor, Hawaii;
Whereas more than 2,000 citizens of the United States were killed and more than 
        1,000 citizens of the United States were wounded in the attack on Pearl 
        Harbor;
Whereas the attack on Pearl Harbor marked the entry of the United States into 
        World War II;
Whereas the veterans of World War II and all other people of the United States 
        commemorate December 7 in remembrance of the attack on Pearl Harbor; and
Whereas commemoration of the attack on Pearl Harbor will instill in all people 
        of the United States a greater understanding and appreciation of the 
        selfless sacrifice of the individuals who served in the armed forces of 
        the United States during World War II: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That December 7 of each year 
is designated as ``National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day'' and the 
President is authorized and requested--
            (1) to issue annually a proclamation calling on the people 
        of the United States to observe the day with appropriate 
        ceremonies and activities; and
            (2) to urge all Federal agencies, and interested 
        organizations, groups, and individuals, to fly the flag of the 
        United States at halfstaff each December 7 in honor of the 
        individuals who died as a result of their service at Pearl 
        Harbor.

            Passed the House of Representatives, August 5, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Subject: Meeting with Holcim (US) Inc.

Date: September 20, 2011

Participants:

Holcim UESPA

Jason Morin Gary Gorski

Erika Guerra Nichole Distefano

Bill Bumpers

Josh Lewis

Lorie Schmidt

Janet McCabe

On September 20, 2011, a m eeting was hel d with Holcim (US) Inc . The meeting covered THC

and particulate matter emissions.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ANTWUNE LADON JENKINS, 

TDCJ No. 1243275,

Petitioner,

VS.

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-0777-G-BN

)

)

)

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The district court reviewed

the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. The court

ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge, except for the following: on page four, line nine, “800 n.9” should

be replaced with “799”. 

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings,

and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The court

adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions,

Case 3:22-cv-00777-G-BN Document 16 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 60
and Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has

failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this

court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000).*

But, if Petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the

appellate filing fee ($505) or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

* Rule 11 of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 Cases, as amended

effective on December 1, 2009, reads as follows: 

(a) Certificate of Appealability. The district court must

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a

final order adverse to the applicant. Before entering the

final order, the court may direct the parties to submit

arguments on whether a certificate should issue. If the

court issues a certificate, the court must state the specific

issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). If the court denies a certificate, the

parties may not appeal the denial but may seek a certificate

from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22. A motion to reconsider a denial does not

extend the time to appeal.

(b) Time to Appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

4(a) governs the time to appeal an order entered under

these rules. A timely notice of appeal must be filed even if

the district court issues a certificate of appealability.

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-00777-G-BN Document 16 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 61
SO ORDERED.

June 22, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:22-cv-00777-G-BN Document 16 Filed 06/22/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 62
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         November 28, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8:3 am to 5:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Sheraton Premiere at Tyson's Corner, 8661 Leesburg Pike, Vienna, VA 22182.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Susan M. Matthews, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6134, MSC 9607, Bethesda, MD 20892-9607, 301-443-5047.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 6, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-29130  Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### CROZIER v. STATE.

No. 21517.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1941.

No attorney for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for receiving and concealing stolen property, the punishment assessed being fifteen days in jail.

The transcript shows that there was a docket entry of the notice' of appeal but nothing to indicate that it was ever carried into the court’s minutes. It has been held repeatedly and consistently that a docket entry does not comply with the requirement of Art. 827, C.C.P. See authorities cited under said article in Vernon’s Ann.Tex.C.C.P., Vol. 3; Branch’s Ann. Tex.P.C., p. 302, sec. 588; 4 Tex.Jur., secs. 77 and 78.

In the face of consistent holdings that, in order to give this court jurisdiction, the notice of appeal must be entered in the minutes of the court, it is surprising how many cases still reach us in which the record either shows no notice of appeal at all or a docket entry only.

The appeal is dismissed.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 28, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-608

Lower Tribunal No. 22-8205

________________

Tania Enid Rodriguez, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Florida Peninsula Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos 

Guzman, Judge.

Shield Law Group of Florida, LLC, and Jamie Alvarez (Davie), for 

appellants.

Salehi, Boyer, Lavigne, Lombana P.A., Oscar Lombana, and Tanaz 

Salehi, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Cantens v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 

3D22-0917, 2024 WL 591695, at *1, *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 14, 2024); Cole v 

Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 363 So. 3d 1089, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023); 

cf. Hughes v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 374 So. 3d 900, 910 (Fla. 6th 

DCA 2023).
Originating Customer

ALC ALC

ALC Contact

Contact Phone

Receiver Treasury Sender Treasury Receiver

Account Symbol Account Symbol Dept. Code

Purchase Order Invoice Obligating

Number Number Document 

Number

Quantity Unit Price Detail Amount

Transaction Contact

Contact Phone

Seizure Case Information

 (Accounting is handled by the DHS Customs and Border Protection National Finance Center)

IPAC Input Form

The Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection (IPAC) form is necessary to transfer funds 

to another government agency, such as the DOJ Forfeiture Fund. The IPAC

form must be accompanied by a Form 2 or Form 7 along with supporting documentation.
Department of the Treasury 

Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture 

DATE: _ / / _
 

Treasury Agency: ____________________
 

Case Number: _______________________
 

Case Name: __________________________
 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

Member Agency Future Expenditure Form 

This form is to be used by the TFF agencies to request a future expenditure on forfeited funds or proceeds of sale of forfeited 

property due to pending petitions, restoration, or other anticipated refunds pursuant to the Guidelines for Treasury Forfeiture Fund 

Agencies on Refunds Pursuant to Court Orders, Petitions for Remission, or Restoration Requests. This form and supporting 

documentation must be must be emailed to your Agency's Headquarters Office. 

Reason for Set Aside / Notice of Future Expenditure: 

Petition Filed: Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture filed but not yet granted. (Attach a copy of petition if 

available.) 

Date Filed: 

Petitioner(s): 

Amount Sought (if known): 

Restoration: Restitution Order sought or entered, and AUSA has filed (or indicated he/she will file a restoration 

request with the Department of Justice, Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section. Further, Restoration has not 

yet been granted. (Attach a copy of the AUSA's restoration request if it has already been filed. If not filed yet, attach 

a letter or email from the AUSA/USAO stating they intend to file a restoration request and explaining the status of the 

restitution order.) 

Petition Not Yet Filed but Expected: Victim case and at least one victim has been identified; Petition for Remission or 

Mitigation of Forfeiture not filed yet but anticipated to be filed. (Include documentation, such as a memo or email from 

the agency or AUSA that they have solicited or will solicit petitions from victims.) 

Name of at least one Victim: 

Seizure Number(s) Cash Receipt 

(CR) # 

Sale Number 

(if applicable) Amount Forfeited Collect Date (ColDte) 

Forfeiture 

Date 

DCR Date 

(ProDte) 

Future Expenditure 

Amount

 $ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

$ - $ -

TOTALS: $ - $ -

FOR TEOAF USE ONLY 

SIGNATURE: 

DATE RECEIVED:

_______________________________ 

 _______________________________