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### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-6276



# 

E RIC E. A LVAREZ ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-97-47, CA-01-75-H) Submitted: May 7, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Eric E. Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Eric E. Alvarez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and his motion to reconsider. The notice of appeal in this case was receivedin the district court after expiration of the sixty day appeal period following the denial of Alvarez’s motion to reconsider. However, Alvarez dated his notice of appeal prior to the expiration of the appeal period. Under Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), the noticeof appeal is deemed filed on the date it was delivered to prison officials. Because the record as it stands does not indicate when Alvarezdelivered his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing, we cannot determine whether the notice of appeal is timely. The record is similarly unclear as to the date Alvarez filed his motion to reconsider from the court’s order denying relief in his habeas motion. Under Houston v. Lack , the motion to reconsider isdeemed filed as of the date the petitioner delivered it to prison officials for forwarding to the court. See United States v. Duke , 50 F.3d 571, 575 (8th Cir. 1995). Although Alvarez’s motion to reconsider was received by the district court clerk approximately one month after denial of his § 2255 motion, Alvarez alleges he delivered the motion to the proper prison officials on the tenth day following the district court’s decision. The date Alvarez delivered the motion to reconsiderto prison officials must be ascertained by the district court as the timing of the filing of that motion determines whether it is properly considered under Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See In re Burnley , 988 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we remand the case for the district court to determine the timeliness of the filing of the notice of appeal under Houston v. Lack . In the event that the court concludes that Alvarez’s notice of appeal was timely filed, it must then determine whether Alvarez’s motion to reconsider was delivered to prison officials for mailing no later than the tenth day following the denial of Alvarez’s § 2255 motion. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
REMANDED 2 U NITED S TATES v. A LVAREZ
#### In the Matter of Marcia Sheila Kasdan, an Attorney.

—Motion Motion to extend effective date of suspension to February 2, 1991 granted. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Ross and Carro, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-89724, 333-03234, 333-57299 and 333-25809) pertaining to the 
1989 Stock Option Plan, 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1993 Directors Plan, 
1995 Stock Option Plan of Quality Semiconductor, Inc. and in the Registration 
Statement (Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 No. 333-30189) of Quality Semiconductor, 
Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated October 28, 1998 with 
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Quality 
Semiconductor, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year 
ended September 27, 1998.



San Jose, California
March 22, 1999
#### CLIFFORD et al. v. SWIFT et al.

No. 10553.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 21, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1938.

Mann & Mann, of Laredo, for appellants.

J. E. Whitmore and Ira Butler, both of Fort Worth, for appellees.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

This action involves the validity of an order of the Livestock Sanitary Commission of Texas requiring owners to dip their cattle under the provisions of the so-called “Tick Eradication Statute.” Act 1929, 41st Leg., 1st C.S. p. 128, c. S3, Vernon’s P.C. Art. 1525c et seq.

The action was brought by Paul Clifford and others, plaintiffs below, to enjoin the Livestock Sanitary Commission and its members- and agents, defendants below, from enforcing an order requiring plaintiffs to dip their cattle located in the Salado Ranch in Webb County, as provided by statute in cases of cattle infested with or exposed to fever-carrying ticks.

The trial court, upon notice pending a temporary restraining order, refused to grant a temporary injunction, and this appeal followed. The parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants, respectively, as in the trial court.

The trial court denied plaintiffs’ application, after judgment, for a restraining order pending this appeal, and this Court has denied a similar motion filed here for an original injunction.

It appeal's from the record that the Salado Ranch, here involved, adjoins the Uhle Ranch, which in turn adjoins the Guerra Ranch. These ranches are separated only by wire fences. The cattle on the Guerra Ranch are classified by the Livestock Sanitary Commission as being ipfested with ticks, rendering them subject to the dipping' process under order of the Commission. The trial court found, by necessary implication, that the fence separating the Guerra from the Uhle Ranch was so defective as to permit the cattle from that ranch to mingle with those in the Uhle, which thereby assumed the same classification as ticky, and thereby became subject to being dipped. It is undisputed that cattle from the Uhle Ranch have been getting into the Salado Ranch and mingling with the cattle therein, which in turn had the effect of placing them in the same classification as those in the Uhle and Guerra ranches, and rendering them subject to dipping when so ordered by the Commission. All the facts stated were impliedly found by the trial judge, and there being some material evidence to support those findings, they are binding upon this Court. The result is that plaintiffs’ cattle had been exposed to cattle which had been classified by the Commission as ticky,-within the contemplation of the statute, and it was within the authority, and became the duty, of the Commission to order them dipped as provided by the same státute. The judgment of the trial court rests upon issues of fact, which, upon a full hearing, were resolved against plaintiffs, upon sufficient evidence. This conclusion settles the appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1549

To amend the Act of September 30, 1961, to exclude professional baseball

from the antitrust exemption applicable to certain television contracts.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 31, 1993

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Act of September 30, 1961, to exclude professional baseball from the antitrust exemption applicable

to certain television contracts.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Baseball Antitrust

5 Restoration Amendment of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

7 The Act of September 30, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 1291–

8 1294) is amended—

9 (1) in the first section by striking ‘‘baseball,’’

10 each place it appears,
2

•HR 1549 IH

1 (2) in sections 4 and 6 by striking ‘‘baseball,’’

2 each place it appears, and

3 (3) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘SEC. 7. The antitrust laws referred to in section 1

5 shall apply with respect to joint agreements of the kind

6 described in such section entered into by or among persons

7 engaging in or conducting the organized professional team

8 sport of baseball.’’.

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

10 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub11 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this

12 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this

13 Act.

14 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—With respect

15 to joint agreements entered into before the date of the

16 enactment of this Act, the amendments made by section

17 2 shall not apply until the expiration of the 1-year period

18 beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AIRNET
SYSTEMS INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                      7,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,765
<PP&E>                                         156,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,087
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,140
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           128
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,535
<SALES>                                            296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,499
<CGS>                                              616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,335
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,564
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,224
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,340
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      17,585,760
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            14,293,899
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 44,353,709
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,521,291
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,472,473
<LOANS>                                    181,839,851
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,655,412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             267,362,879
<DEPOSITS>                                 220,283,731
<SHORT-TERM>                                 6,431,752
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,298,721
<LONG-TERM>                                  5,282,847
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,975,583
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,090,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             267,362,879
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             16,902,123
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,013,084
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               832,788
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            20,747,995
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,266,716
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,024,425
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,723,570
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  188,300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (43,495)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              8,101,485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,839,091
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   4,440,975
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,440,975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.16
<LOANS-NON>                                    394,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    82,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,771,784
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  492,959
<RECOVERIES>                                   188,287
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,655,412
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,655,412
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Order entered September 28, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00800
- CV
SHIRLEY RUTH ALBERTS , Appellant

V. LOU ANN RICHARDSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 3 03rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 15
- 18153



### O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal.
We GRANT the August 12, 2016 motion of the Dallas County District Clerk for an
extension of time to file the clerk’s record and extend the time to OCTOBER 28, 2016

. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with thisQuarterly Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David I. Matson, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 8, 2006 |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    | By:    | /s/ DAVID I. MATSON |
|                    |   | David I. Matson |
|                    |   | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6996** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

TERRIS TAMARA PARSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr
- 00357

- TLW

- 1 )

Submitted : November 1, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012

Before KING, SHEDD, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Terris Tamara Parson , Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Terris Tamara Parson appeals the distr ict court ’ s
order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence, 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) . We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See United States v. Par son , No.

4:07

- cr
- 00357

- TLW

- 1 (D.S.C. filed May 16, 2012 , and entered
May 17, 2012 ) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1905 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1905

      To increase the number of States that may conduct Medicaid 
  demonstration programs to improve access to community mental health 
                               services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 2, 2017

Ms. Stabenow (for herself and Mr. Blunt) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To increase the number of States that may conduct Medicaid 
  demonstration programs to improve access to community mental health 
                               services.

    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 ``Excellence in Mental Health and 
Addiction Treatment Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    Section 223(d) of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (42 
U.S.C. 1396a note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) by striking ``Not more than'' and inserting 
                ``Subject to paragraph (8), not more than''; and
                    (B) by striking ``2-year'' and inserting ``3-
                year''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(8) Additional programs.--In addition to the 8 States 
        selected under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select 11 
        States (which shall not include any States selected under 
        paragraph (1)) to participate in 2-year demonstration programs 
        that meet the requirements of this subsection and represent a 
        diverse selection of geographic areas, including rural and 
        underserved areas.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1958 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1958

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require Internet-based, 
     real-time responses to requests to verify taxpayer income for 
         legitimate business purposes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 16, 2017

 Mr. Booker (for himself and Mr. Crapo) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require Internet-based, 
     real-time responses to requests to verify taxpayer income for 
         legitimate business purposes, 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 ``IRS Data Verification Modernization 
Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION FOR THIRD-PARTY INCOME 
              VERIFICATION.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's 
delegate (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall 
implement a program to ensure that any qualified disclosure--
            (1) is fully automated and accomplished through the 
        Internet; and
            (2) is accomplished in as close to real-time as is 
        practicable.
    (b) Qualified Disclosure.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
``qualified disclosure'' means a disclosure under section 6103(c) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of returns or return information by 
the Secretary to a person seeking to verify the income of a taxpayer 
for a legitimate business purpose who has represented to the Secretary 
that such person will comply with the requirements of section 
6103(p)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    (c) User Fee.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary shall assess and collect a 
        fee for disclosures described in subsection (a) at such rates 
        as the Secretary determines are sufficient to recover the costs 
        related to implementing the program described in subsection (a) 
        not later than 5 years after such costs are paid or incurred. 
        Such costs shall include the costs of any necessary 
        infrastructure or technology.
            (2) Deposit of collections.--Amounts received from fees 
        authorized by paragraph (1) shall be deposited as an offsetting 
        collection in, and credited to, the account through which funds 
        are made available to carry out the activities described in 
        subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of SBM Certificate Company for the
year ended December 31, 1996 of our report dated March 29, 1995 and contained in
Registration Statement No. 33-38066 of SBM Certificate Company on Form S-1 under
the Securities Act of 1933 insofar as such reports relate to the financial
statement schedules of SBM Certificate Company for the year ended December 31,
1994.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 26, 1997