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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6582

CHARLES R. MAJOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SCDC; PERNELL CROMER, Counselor; DAVID CRISP,

Supervisor; EDDIE BRIGHT; RICHARD SMITH,

Warden; BARNEY LLOYD; OFFICER WACKEL; DONALD

DEASE, Administrator; TOM SMITH, Detective,

Warden; MR. WRIGHT; MR. PRICE; MR. HESTER,

Unit Manager; MR. ROGERS; LIEUTENANT GOMEORA;

FOUR UNNAMED TURBEVILLE OFFICERS; DORIS

EDWARDS, Counselor; SUPERVISOR HARRIS; PERRY

OFFICIAL VISSOR; RICHARD ECKSTROM, South Carolina Treasurer; TURBEVILLE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-752-6-21AK)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 10, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Charles R. Major, Appellant Pro Se. James D. Brice, GIBBES,

GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Charles R. Major appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Major v. SCDC, No. CA-97-752-6-21AK (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 1998). 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
### QPM# A1R-ANM-030-F7 Date: 9/01/2007 

### Revision


## Record ofContacts Zc.iIO "- (20 

### b DMS Docket No. FAA-20lt With whom outside the FAAhas this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date ATA JoeWhite 04/0.112009 

### ATA Joe White 06/15/2010

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master List to Verify That This isthe Correct Revision Before Use
<PAGE>





                                   EXHIBIT 23

                               CONSENT OF KPMG LLP



<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Sound Federal Bancorp

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-61887 and 333-93215) of our report dated April 30, 2002, except
for Note 19 which is as of June 14, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Sound Federal Bancorp and subsidiary as of March 31, 2002 and 2001,
and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
March 31, 2002, which report appears in the March 31, 2002 Annual Report on Form
10-K of Sound Federal Bancorp.

Our report refers to Sound Federal Bancorp's adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," as of
April 1, 2001 and as a result ceased amortizing goodwill.



\s\ KPMG LLP


New York, New York
June 26, 2002
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12256

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANTZ MERSIER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60094-RKA-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12256 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 10/05/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12256

Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant 

to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. 

See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350–51 (11th Cir. 1993) 

(sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly 

and voluntarily); United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 1292, 1297 (11th 

Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by comments the court makes during sentencing”); United States v. GrinardHenry, 399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to 

appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable 

legal issues or even blatant error).

USCA11 Case: 22-12256 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 10/05/2023 Page: 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2192

JAMES V. LOWERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge. (1:05- cv-03424-BPG) Submitted: August 29, 2007 Decided: September 14, 2007 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey R. Scholnick, HOOD & SCHOLNICK, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: James V. Lowery appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. * We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. See42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Craig v. Chater , 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thorou ghly reviewed the materials submitted in the joint appendix and the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Lowery v. Barnhart , No. 1:05-cv-03424-BPG (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2006). 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
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24510]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue Debts

    Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' 
claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the 
Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined 
and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private 
consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health 
and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be 
lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or 
the applicable rate determined from the ``Schedule of Certified 
Interest Rates with Range of Maturities'' unless the Secretary waives 
interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by 
statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the 
Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and 
Human Services publishes this rate in the Federal Register.
    The current rate of 12\3/8\%, as fixed by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, is certified for the quarter ended September 30, 2024. This 
rate is based on the Interest Rates for Specific Legislation, 
``National Health Services Corps Scholarship Program (42 U.S.C. 
254o(b)(1)(A))'' and ``National Research Service Award Program (42 
U.S.C. 288(c)(4)(B)).'' This interest rate will be applied to overdue 
debt until the Department of Health and Human Services publishes a 
revision.

David C. Horn,
Director, Office of Financial Policy and Reporting.
[FR Doc. 2024-24510 Filed 10-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Pinpoint Recovery Solutions Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
Jon D. Leslie, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
his knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




May 14,
2009





/S/ JON D. LESLIE





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pinpoint Recovery Solutions Corp. and will be retained by Pinpoint Recovery
Solutions Corp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3218 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3218

   To amend the Clean Air Act to exclude beverage alcohol compounds 
 emitted from aging warehouses from the definition of volatile organic 
                               compounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 18 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

 Mr. McConnell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Clean Air Act to exclude beverage alcohol compounds 
 emitted from aging warehouses from the definition of volatile organic 
                               compounds.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.

    Section 302(s) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7602(s)) is amended 
by adding the following at the end thereof: ``Such term shall not 
include beverage alcohol compounds (ethanol) emitted from aging 
warehouses.''.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 24, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 476 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-80, K2025-78.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24600 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

SEAN MICHAEL GUADAGNO , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D 2 0

- 2722

[ July 8, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Robert E. Belanger

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56

- 2013

- CF

- 003565A

.
Sean Michael Guadagno

, Carrabelle , pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Assistant A ttorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN , L EVINE and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT #21
 
                           CCPC HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
 
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998 ARE LISTED BELOW:
 
1.  Corning Consumer Products Company (Delaware)
 
2.  Corning Consumer Canada Inc. (Canada)
 
3.  CCPC (Asia) Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
 
4.  Corning Consumer Australia Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
 
5.  CCPC Iwaki Malaysia SDN BHD (Malaysia)
 
6.  Mundial Brasil Produtos de Consumo Ltda. (Brazil)
 
7.  CCPC (Korea) Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea)
 
8.  CCPC FSC Inc.
 
                                       65
#### Lottie Dull, Appellee, v. Thomas Dull, Appellant.

DIVORCE: Modification of Alimony Provisions Because of Remarriage. Alimony decrees for the benefit of minor children will not he modified on the sole ground that the plaintiff mother has remarried, especially when there is no showing of change in the financial condition of the parties.

*Appeal from Mahaska District Court.*— Henry Silwold, Judge.

April 6, 1920.

The trial court refused to modify an allowance of alimony. Therefore, defendant *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*942
      *J. G. Patterson,*for appellant.

W. *H. Keating*and *David 8.*David, for appellee.

Salinger, J.

The alimony provision charges the defendant with supporting plaintiff and their minor child, to the extent of contributing $4.00 per week, payable semimonthly. It is" from this obligation that the appellant seeks to be relieved. It may fairly be said that he urges but one reason for the modification in question, and that is that, since the divorce, his wife has remarried. There is no substantial evidence whatever that conditions have otherwise substantially changed since the divorce was granted. It fairly appears from the record that, though the alimony provision in terms includes both the plaintiff and the minor child, the parties understood it to be a provision for that child only. We would be very loath to hold that, when this father became divorced from this mother, that he also became divorced from the child that he had brought into the world. We should make such a pronouncement only if the law imperatively compelled it. We conclude, on the contrary, that the law demands we shall not cancel this obligation for the support of this child merely because the mother has remarried. For aught that appears in this record, the child might starve, so far as either the willingness or ability of the stepfather to support it is concerned. As said, there can be no reversal, unless the naked fact of the remarriage is a sufficient ground for reversing. Whatever may have been the state of the law in the past, it is settled in this jurisdiction, and rightly, that the remarriage alone affords no ground for such a modification as is here sought. It seems to us that the many cases requiring proof of a change in financial ability are, in themselves, sufficient to sustain that conclusion. But we think it is expressly sustained in *Daniels v. Daniels,*145 Iowa 422.

In view of the conclusion reached, we have no occasion *943to pass upon the objection made by appellee, that this proceeding should have been instituted by supplemental petition, rather than by motion. See *Schlarb v. Schlarb,*168 Iowa 364, at 371. We are fully satisfied that the order below is right, and it *is*— Affirmed.

Weaver, C. J., Evans and Preston, JJ., concur,
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 50114 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jose Burciaga**

**- Alcantar,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 318

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Jose Burciaga

- Alcantar appeals his sentence of 37 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry

. He argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) , which was used to enhance his sentence, is

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 12, 2021

Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 21-50114 Document: 00515976093 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2021No. 21

- 50114

2 unconstitutional because it increases the statutory maximum sentence based on the fact of a prior conviction neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, asserting that Burciaga

- Alcantar’s argument is foreclosed. The parties are correct that the so le issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

- Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th Cir. 2007)

. Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly , the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. T he Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED**

**.** Case: 21-50114 Document: 00515976093 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2410

GARY L. DETEMPLE, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus MARK D. PANEPINTO, successor to United National Bank, successor to Fed One Bank doing business as Eastern Development Company; UNITED NATIONAL BANK; WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND REVENUE; B. K. WATTS, Unit Manager, Internal Auditing Division, in his individual capacity; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; RITA R. VALDRINI, in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-145-5) Submitted: May 31, 2002 Decided: June 13, 2002 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Gary L. DeTemple, Appellant Pro Se. Mark D. Panepinto, Wheeling, West Virginia; George James Anetakis, Weirton, West Virginia; William David Wilmoth, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Wheeling, West Virginia; Helen Campbell Altmeyer, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Gary L. DeTemple appeals from the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to vacate a prior order dismissing one of the named defendants in the underlying proceeding. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. In light of this disposition, we also deny DeTemple’s motions for clarification, for production of documents, and for stay pending appeal, as well as United National Bank’s motions to deny further extensions, to dismiss the case, and to strike DeTemple’s informal brief and response to its motion to dismiss. 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.

DISMISSED
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

January 24, 2020

Paul J. Lockwood, Esq.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom 

LLP

One Rodney Square

P.O. Box 636

Wilmington, Delaware 19899

Ethan H. Townsend, Esq.

McDermott, Will & Emery LLP

The Nemours Building

1007 North Orange Street, 4th Floor

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

RE: Diligence, Inc. v. Nicholas Day

C.A. No. 2020-0041-SG

Dear Counsel:

I have Mr. Lockwood’s letter of today. I consider the Motion for Entry of a 

Status Quo Order to be, effectively, a TRO request. A hearing on that motion is now 

scheduled for 1 p.m. on Monday, January 27, 2020 in Georgetown. Counsel for all 

parties are expected to attend. If the parties are able to agree to an interim status quo 

order that will allow a less expedited proceeding, they should so inform me and 

provide a form of order, in which case the January 27 hearing will be continued and 

rescheduled at the convenience of counsel and the Court.

To the extent the foregoing requires an order IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III