alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 14, 2007 Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge JAMES T. SULLIVAN, not ] Appeals from the United individually, but as a Trustee ] States District Court for of the Technical Engineering ] the Northern District of Division Pension Fund, Local 130 ] Illinois, Eastern Division. U.A., The Technical Engineering ] Division Welfare Fund, Local 130, ] No. 04 C 2736 U.A. and Trust Fund for Education, ] Technical Engineering Division ] Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, Local 130, U.A., LOCAL 130 ] Judge. TECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION ] INDUSTRY FUND, U.A., CHICAGOLAND ] CONSTRUCTION SAFETY COUNCIL et al., ] Plaintiffs-Appellants, ] ] Nos. 06-1581 and 06-2994 v. ] ] WILLIAM A. RANDOLPH, INC., ] Defendant-Appellee. ] Upon consideration of the APPELLANT’S MOTION TO CORRECT OPINION DATED OCTOBER 5, 2007 , filed on December 7, 2007, by counsel for the appellants, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The following sentence on page 7 of the slip opinion: ERISA authorizes the award of reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). shall be AMENDED to read: ERISA authorizes the award of reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7748

CAROL N. DREW, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LARRY EDMONDS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00312-TSE-JFA)

Submitted: February 25, 2014 Decided: March 7, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carol N. Drew, III, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Carol N. Drew, III, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Drew has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Drew’s motion for 

a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2103 

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to hold certain public 

employers liable in civil actions for deprivation of rights, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 17, 2021 

Mr. PADILLA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to 

hold certain public employers liable in civil actions for 

deprivation of rights, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Accountability for Fed5 eral Law Enforcement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS. 

7 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United 

8 States (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2103 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Every’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(a) In this section, the term ‘public employer’ means 

4 a Federal law enforcement agency that, at the time of a 

5 deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities de6 scribed in section (b), employs, or contracts with an indi7 vidual to perform the duties of, a Federal law enforcement 

8 officer or any other officer empowered by law to execute 

9 searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests. 

10 ‘‘(b) Every’’; 

11 (2) in subsection (b), as so designated, by in12 serting ‘‘the United States or’’ before ‘‘any State’’; 

13 and 

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

15 ‘‘(c) If, while acting under color of law, any officer 

16 who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evi17 dence, or to make arrests subjects or causes to be sub18 jected any citizen of the United States or other person 

19 within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any 

20 rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitu21 tion and laws, the public employer of that officer shall be 

22 liable to the party injured for the conduct of the officer 

23 in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper pro24 ceeding for redress, regardless of whether a policy or cus25 tom of the public employer caused the violation, and reVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:21 Jun 24, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2103.IS S2103

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2103 IS

1 gardless of whether the officer has any defense or immu2 nity from suit or liability. This paragraph shall constitute 

3 a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to Federal 

4 law enforcement agencies for any claim brought under this 

5 section. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to 

6 limit or preclude any legal, equitable, or other remedy that 

7 is available, under this section or under any other source 

8 of law, against an individual officer.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM H. ARNOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, and MICHAEL REDDING, Plaintiff,

v. WATERFIELD MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, No. 96-1701 Defendant-Appellee, and UNION FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK; ALVIN E. FRIEDMAN; KENNETH J. MACFADYEN; JAMES J. LOFTUS; DANIEL MENCHEL, Substitute Trustees, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-95-2626-S) Argued: May 6, 1997 Decided: June 17, 1997 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________COUNSEL ARGUED: Herbert Arthur Terrell, Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellant.Michael Thomas Cantrell, FRIEDMAN & MACFADYEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Allan J. Culver, Jr., Bel Air, Maryland, for Appellant. Kenneth J. MacFadyen, FRIEDMAN & MACFADYEN, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: William H. Arnold appeals an order of the district court granting summary judgment against him on his action to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (TILA). We affirm. In 1989 Arnold obtained a loan from Defendant Union Federal Savings Bank. The loan was evidenced by an adjustable rate note and secured by a mortgage against Arnold's home. In 1995, six years after signing the loan documents, Arnold brought this action in district court to rescind the loan. The TILA imposes a three-year statute of limitations on actions to rescind. See15 U.S.C. § 1635(f) ("An obligor's right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction or upon the sale of the property, whichever occurs first . . ."). Arnold admits that more than three years have elapsed since the loan transaction closed.Arnold's principal contention on appeal is that the three-year limitations period starts anew each time a rate adjustment is made to avariable rate mortgage. We disagree. A rate adjustment is not a "transaction" within the meaning of § 1635(f). Cf. 12 C.F.R. § 226.20(c) (explaining that a variable rate adjustment is an event requiring new 2disclosures, but not indicating that adjustment triggers a new opportunity to rescind). Therefore, we agree with the district court that the three-year limitations period bars Arnold's action to rescind. After consideration of the parties' briefs, the record, and the oral arguments of counsel, we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment against Arnold on all of his claims. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Arnold v. Waterfield Mortgage Co. , No. S 95-2626 (D. Md. 1996). AFFIRMED 3
**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**

I, Robert E. Wolfe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSBSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 1, 2006

/s/Robert E. Wolfe

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

                                                       Robert E. Wolfe

                                                       Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906 is retained by Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

**CERTIFICATION OF TREASURER**

**PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

I, Robert E. Wolfe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSBSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 1, 2006

/s/ Robert E. Wolfe

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

                                                         Robert E. Wolfe

                                                         Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement  required by Section 906 is retained by Advanced Oxygen Technologies, Inc. and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LASER
TECHNOLOGY, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         757,076
<SECURITIES>                                 1,545,425
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,807,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                   250,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,847,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,707,259
<PP&E>                                       2,716,056
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,211,607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,211,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,419,065
<BONDS>                                        114,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        52,442
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,625,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,211,708
<SALES>                                     11,814,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,747,450
<CGS>                                        5,845,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,955,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,071,257
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (256,277)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (9,009)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,372,039)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (985,934)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,386,105)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)


</TABLE>
c 

0 

p 

I 

REF ID:A67513 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 

August 31, 1935 

1. This is to record certain facts in connection with the 

invention of several alternative means of providing an aperiodic 

displacement of tne substitution cipher wheels of a cipher ma8 

chine as granted in claim 17 of the patent specifications having 

reference to Converter Type 1-134-T2. [ .4ft:~- ~ Ii'!. (a~l.,c1t.] 

2. It is desired to record here that the fundamental principle of using one or more eommutators in conjunction with a set 

of selector magnets as a means for effecting the aperiodic displacements discussed in par. 1 is the contribution of Frank B. 

Rowlett. 

3. The subsidiary principle (subsidiary to that set forth 

in par. 2) of producing aperiodic displacements (discussed in 

par. 1) of the substitution cipher wheels by means of an independent set of collllnutators containing contacts equal in number 

to the number of substitution cipher wheels to be displaced, is 

the contribution of Frank B. Rowlett. 

4. The subsidiary principle (subsidiary to that set forth 

in par. 2) of producing aperiodic displacements (discussed in 

par. l) of the substitution cipher wheels by means of an independent 

set of cipher wheels, hereinafter called the control cipher wheels, 

and having the latter cipher wheels identical in number of contacts 

and construction with the former so that all cipher wheels are 

interchangeable, is the contribution of William F. Friedman. 

s. The subsidiary principle {subsidiary to that set forth in 

par. 2) of producing the aperiodic displacements (discussed in par. 

1) of the substitution cipher wheels by means of a second set or 

control contacts on each face of each of the substitution cipher 

wheels themselves, and providing appropriate electrical circuits 

for the control contacts to govern the operation of the displacement mechanism, is the contribution of Frank B. Rowlett. 

6. The subsidiary principle (subsidiary to that set forth 

in par. 2) of producing the aperiodic displacements (discussed 

in par. 1) of the substitution cipher wheels by means of the same 

set of substitution contacts operating in connection with a gang 

switch which makes these contacts serve for substitution and 

control in alternate sequence, is the contribution of Frank B. 

Rowlett. 

' .. , l~ ~"\~4·~- i ~ μ; ~ 1?bv_, "'~ fk 

lA\pproved for Release by NSA on 09-09-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§ 
• 11' 

/' • REF ID:A67513' 

7. The application of the principle of aperiodic displacement of substitution cipher wheels to cryptographs of the original 

Enigma type (in which the electrical circuit through the cipher 

wheels is reversed by means of a reversing cipher wheel and again 

conducted through the other cipher wheels before reaching the 

signaling element) is the contribution of William F. Friedman. 

S. The foregoing facts will be used as a basis for evaluation 

and division of interest in all financial benefits which may accrue 

from the prosecution of the invention and its reduction to practice. 

CJ;J~ d:,J:-~.J, .. ,.._i 

William F. Friedman. 

I 

Witnesses:
~--

REF ID:A58658 

Patent Application No. 701,lto4, filed 7 Dec 1933 

l. (Covers improvements OD the B-211) 

(u.s. ba8 a royalt:r-tree license on this 

•chine, without limitation as to time) 

pproved for Release by NSA on 06-17-2014 pursuant to E.O. 

3526 
- -~-----=-==.--------=---=---=-------

REF ID:A5865. _
·-

.;; . 

.:1 .... ~ '!"'" 

;:il 

~"-' ,.... fl. 

. . ' ...... f I '"'"' 'r •,,_.;·. • ~ ,,: .... •. 

-... ,..,, ... f • 

=--,.~ -

-~~~ 

. ~-- ~ -~ . ! ... .. !.. .. 

- . 

' . 

, .... ~ . 

-. \ . , . 

----· 

! . :. 

... 

. ~­

"-· ""'":.£• ' .. orir. 

;.- . 

·!!~"'"· . .... ; ..... 

. . . .. 

~.: 

... . '. 

. ·-

-~~·· h I 

REF. ID: A9.;BB1 . ·' , ·-. ~ - ..... -~~.:-'"-· . I '""-:.~"' l: i .. -

Wilmington, N. c., Aug. 2nd, 1935 

Dear ,riemna:iu 

. ' 

I take my seat at my trusty "Royal" (which you made me pur- chase'.; and you now write me by hand.) to ask you for some information, and. 

"to work off an accumulation of bad temper caused by a futile attempt to un- aer~tana. Mr. Row~ett•s paper, "Further Applications," etc • 

~ have not a shaiow of a dount that the paper is entirely correct in 

premises and conclusions, n~r have I any aoubt of its value. Furthermore 

I am ~ure it is perfectly clear to you and to your staff. I am also sure 

that ~he reason I do not unierstana it is that I am ignorant of some .f'unaamentals ae1nonstratecl elsewhere. 

' 

~ut I suDmit that a technical paper rttouli stand on its own teat. It 

shouli 9e iD:telligiDle to one moaerately verset in the subject of which it treat~. If it ieals with matter not generally known, it should. proviie & 

referbnce to the source of such matter, and a brief summary. Xhis paper is intend.ea tor some one besiaes its author ani hii associ&:tes. You are, 

it is 1 true, auiliing up a continuous traaition· in your department. In 

case,· however, ot the interruption of that traiition, the papers you print 

should be intelligible to future generations. ' I 

·. 

. ... . -...-

. ' bn page 2 of the paper in question I read ot the employment ot "two Ii.if- ,·· 

ferent keyworcl-mixed. alphabets". The analysis that follows is clear until 

I reaph page ~ and f'ini the writer talking about 6 alphabets. All I have reach~• by trying to unaerstani him is high ieiree of irrita8ility - I cou1& 

cuss jLn. more than six alphabets, not to say languages. I 

Your ow.a. papers ieal with matters not generally known even to crypto- graph~rs, bu·t they d.o not suffer from this fault. I hope I have myself avoii~d it. It's villainous. 

Heatedly 

C.I fb... . 1 Scientific wri~ frequently suffersnfrom a fault that might ~ 

callei intentional obscurity. If a read.er does not unaerstana, the WTiter smil~s half exultingly and. half' pityingly ana says, "Ah, but you 4on•t ~ mow I ft ••••••••••••••• 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

........... 

,. 

t. 

,. 

: 

E 

,. 

.
• IN REPLY REFER TO: 

REF ID:A3625¥ 

WAR DEPARTMENT 

l 

SIGLG-3HMS 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER 

WASHINGTON 25, 0. C. 

8 Soptember 1947 

Subject: Applications of William F. Friedman, S.N. 478,868 and 478,193 

To: Chief', Army Security Agency 

The Pentagon Building 

Washington 25, D. c. 

attention: Mr. Stauffer 

Inclosed herewith is a copy of Patent Office actions dated 22 April 

1947 for each of' the above-mentioned applications. The delay in forwarding these actions is regretted. 

FOR THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER.a 

2 Incls 

Pat Off actions re 

S.N. 478,868 and 

S.N. 478,193 

L J _ \, 1,.,_ )1 I ,.i~- '-/'- r"' ~-- ~ ~y M! SARAGOVITZ ( ';i J ) 

Pa tent Counsel I 

Legal Division 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 08-12-2014 pursuantto E _O _ 1352a
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.W., the Mother,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, GUARDIAN AD LITEM 

PROGRAM, and C.W., the Father,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-1671

[September 28, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Kirk C. Volker, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502016DP000548.

Andrew A. Holness of Andrew A. Holness, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

appellant.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Paul O’Neil, Assistant Regional 

Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm 

Beach, for appellee C.W., the Father.

Sebastian Camilo Mejia of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Orlando, and 

Thomasina Moore, Sanford, for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

Richard H. Nelson, West Palm Beach and Meredith K. Hall, Bradenton, 

for appellee Florida Department of Children and Families.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors

of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp.: 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-29885, 333-81813, 333-54688 and 333-115871) on Form S-8 of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp. of our report dated February 24,2006, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Hungarian Telephone and Cable Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, stockholders’equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial statements Schedule II which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Hungarian Telephoneand Cable Corp. 

KPMG Hungaria Kft. 

Budapest, Hungary 

February 24, 2006