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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2020

JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INCORPORATED; FIRST NORTH

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 99-2021

JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CIRCUIT CITY STORES; CIRCUIT CITY STORES,

INCORPORATED; FIRST NORTH AMERICAN NATIONAL

BANK,

Defendants - Appellees.
2

No. 99-2022

JOSEPH R. JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INCORPORATED; FIRST NORTH

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-98-1407-A, CA-99-695-A, CA-99-696-A)

Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 23, 1999

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Amy Miles Kowalski,

MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

July 13, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on July 15, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

3

PER CURIAM:

Joseph R. Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing with prejudice his civil action under Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2)(C). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. Circuit City

Stores, Inc., Nos. CA-98-1407-A; CA-99-695-A; CA-99-696-A (E.D. Va.

July 15, 1999).* We deny Appellees’ motion to strike Johnson’s reply or in the alternative motion for leave to file a surreply. 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
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

941 

CAF 15-01744 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF NANCY T. 

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

CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ORDER

SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

LYNN T., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

KUSTELL LAW GROUP, LLP, BUFFALO (CARL B. KUSTELL OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JANE E. LOVE, MAYVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

NANCY A. DIETZEN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FREDONIA. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County

(Judith S. Claire, J.), entered September 22, 2015 in a proceeding

pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order terminated the

parental rights of respondent. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated at Family Court.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 09, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 09, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0149. STEPHEN G. USSERY v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2012FE0060
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALFREDO PINTOR IZQUIERDO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71219

Agency No. A097-473-509

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 16, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Alfredo Pintor Izquierdo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of 

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-71219

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings and review de novo conclusions of law. Wakkary v. 

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for review

and we remand.

The agency determined that Pintor Izquierdo’s past harm rose to the level of 

persecution and that the government was unwilling to control his persecutors, but 

that he failed to show that he was harmed on account of his sexual orientation. 

The record compels the conclusion that one central reason Pintor Izquierdo was 

harmed was on account of his sexual orientation. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 

555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “persecution may be caused by 

more than one central reason”). Pintor Izquierdo is entitled to a presumption that 

his life or freedom would be threatened if returned to Mexico. 

8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to his 

withholding of removal claim and remand for the agency to address in the first 

instance whether the government has rebutted this presumption. See INS v. 

Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

Further, in denying Pintor Izquierdo’s CAT claim, the agency found that 

Pintor Izquierdo failed to establish that he could not relocate. When the BIA and 
3 12-71219

IJ issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s 

decision in Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc)

(applicants need not demonstrate that relocation would be impossible). Thus, we 

also grant the petition as to Pintor Izquierdo’s CAT claim, and remand for the 

agency to determine the impact, if any, of this decision. See Ventura, 537 U.S. at 

16-18.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
REF ID:A485277 

l8 ~ 1955 

l had been nopitlg to hea.r from you in egnnection with 

the most interesting piec& o:r info~tion I J.earne~ ttom 

you when I visited thel l!.t their nice html& la.st 

March. l have the impreseion t t you were going to get 

me something from ;your old Singapore ae8()C:18.te who now 

lives at one of the service ,C1ubs in tendon &.nd who might 

add something to your recollectioμ../ Aleo, you yourself, 

I thought, were going to···wr··· i't<! lllll aoneth1: ""'1, I ba' hoped, too, that pass1bly you could get I Ito 

do the sarne.Qw,/perh.aps, that I di ''t get a cha.nee 

to ta.lk with. because he was ill during the time···.·. 

of ray visit. An;rt. that you could let llle have with 

propriety and without gotng to too much trouble woUl.d )tie 

very greatly appreciated. 

I am at hQme now, conve~leseing from rtl3' illnese ,t and 

it will be at least a couplE~ more weeks yet· bEtfore .? can 

go back to the off ice, ini t:l.ally, of course, tor light duty. 

With cordial greetings to all thel ft am, 

Since.rely, 

· Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

PJj 86-36/50 USC 

E:b 3 . 3 ( h ) ( 2 )
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15259-15260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06537]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD

[Notice-PCLOB-2015-01; Docket No. 2015-0001; Sequence No. 1]

Request for Public Comment on Activities Under Executive Order 
12333

AGENCY: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

ACTION: Notice; Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: As announced at the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight 
Board's (PCLOB) public meeting on July 23, 2014, the PCLOB is examining 
counterterrorism activities conducted under the Executive Order 
pertaining to the United States Intelligence Activities and their 
implications for privacy and civil liberties. As such, the PCLOB seeks 
public input to inform the Board's examination of activities conducted 
under the Executive Order.

DATES: Written comments may be submitted at any time prior to the 
closing of the comment period at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) 
on June 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments with the notice number PCLOB-2015-01 
by the following methods:
    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for ``Notice 
PCLOB-2015-01''. Select the link ``Comment Now'' that corresponds with 
``Notice PCLOB-2015-01''. Follow the instructions provided at the 
``Comment Now'' screen. Please include your name, company name (if 
any), and ``Notice PCLOB-2015-01'' on your attached document.
     Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory 
Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Ms. Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street 
N.W., 2nd floor, Washington, DC 20405.
     Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite 
``Notice PCLOB-2015-01'' in all correspondence related to this case. 
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business 
confidential information provided.

[[Page 15260]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Bradford Franklin, Executive 
Director, 202-331-1986.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PCLOB seeks public input to inform the 
Board's examination of activities conducted under Executive Order 
(E.O.) 12333--United States Intelligence Activities. Although the Board 
recognizes that much information about activities under E.O. 12333 is 
classified and/or not publicly available, the Board seeks comments 
regarding any concerns about counterterrorism activities conducted 
under E.O. 12333 based on the information that is currently 
unclassified and publicly available, as well as suggestions for 
questions the PCLOB should ask as part of its inquiry.

    Dated: March 16, 2015.
Lynn Parker Dupree,
Acting General Counsel, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-06537 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-B3-P
```
II 

Calendar No. 133 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2126 

To designate the Federal Office Building located at 308 W. 21st Street 

in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as the ‘‘Louisa Swain Federal Office Building’’, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 17, 2021 

Ms. LUMMIS (for herself and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

SEPTEMBER 22 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 21), 2021 

Reported by Mr. CARPER, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal Office Building located at 308 

W. 21st Street in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as the ‘‘Louisa 

Swain Federal Office Building’’, 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. LOUISA SWAIN FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal Office Building lo5 cated at 308 W. 21st Street in Cheyenne, Wyoming, shall 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2126 RS

1 be known and designated as the ‘‘Louisa Swain Federal 

2 Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the Federal Office Building referred to in sub6 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lou7 isa Swain Federal Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 133 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2126 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal Office Building located at 

for other purposes. the ‘‘Louisa Swain Federal Office Building’’, and 308 W. 21st Street in Cheyenne, Wyoming, as 

SEPTEMBER 22 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 21), 2021 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
REF ID:A67454 

ROUTING and WOR!I SHEET 

(To be used u~der provisions of Par. :4! ~6 b, Office Regulations, OCSigO, I934J 

Number 

Each F'rom: To: 

Action 

• 

Memoqrndum 

Initials 

and 

Date 

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

TO: MR. C. A. RO\VE, 

Patent Section, 

Office of The Chief Signal Officer. 

Reference is made to memorandum of Mr. Willirun F. 

Friedman, dated October 4, 1935, transmitting a dra~ of 

specifications and drawings and a request that a patent 

application be filed on his invention covering nrmprovements 

in Crypt ographsn. 

The Patent Sectiori is hereby directed to take the 

necessary action to invoke the "three year rule" under the 

provisions of section 4894 R· 5,., in accordance with the 

procedure initiated by order of the Chief Signal Officer 

ori August 21, 1935 • · . 

I 

Roge~ B· Colten, 

Lieut. Col., Signal Corps. 

/' 

/;~rL-~; ,;(,~~ 

10. 

10 15-35 

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

Shee', fo. 

~------··-------L _____ ------. -- -----__________________ .. ______ ------· ------
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2040** 
JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR., google.search , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. THERESA CARROLL BUCHANAN, U.S. Magistrate Judge , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:12

- cv - 00324

- AWA

- TEM )

Submitted : February 5, 2013 Decided: February 11, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Julius Brown, Sr. appeals the district court ’s order dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Brown v. Buchanan , No. 2:12

- cv - 00324

- AWA

- TEM (E.D. Va. June 18, 2012). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT23.3**

** **

**March 14,  2006**

** **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTPETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

** **

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previouslyfiled Registration Statements on Form S-8 No. 333-22571, No. 333-93209, No.333-61890, No. 333-106484 and No. 333-113619 and Registration Statement on FormS-3 No. 333-125677, each****of EdgePetroleum Corporation (the “Company”), of our summary report dated January 25,2006 included as Exhibit 99.2 to this Annual Report on Form 10-K in respect ofour reserve report relating to the oil and gas reserves and revenues of certaininterests of the Company as of December 31, 2005 and of the data extracted fromsuch reports appearing in “Items 1 and 2. Business and Properties under thecaption “Oil and Natural Gas Reserves” and in Note 20. Supplementary FinancialInformation on Oil and Natural Gas Exploration, Development and ProductionActivities (unaudited) of the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements forthe year ended December 31, 2005, each contained in such Annual Report on Form10-K. We hereby consent to all references to such reports and/or this firm insuch Annual Report on Form 10-K and we hereby consent to all references to suchreports and/or to this firm in each such Registration Statement, and furtherconsent to our being named as an expert in each such Registration Statement andin each Prospectus to which any such Registration Statement relates.

 

 
|       | **W.D. VON GONTEN & CO.**   |
|------------|---------------------------------|
|       |                            |
|       |                            |
| ** ** | **BY:**                         | **/S/  W. D. VON GONTEN, JR.** | ** ** |
| ** ** | **WILLIAM  D. VON GONTEN, JR.** |
| ** ** | **PRESIDENT**                   |

 

----
NO. 12-18-00063-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE

MARRIAGE OF ALMA HERNANDEZ 

AND JODY MCCREARY AND IN THE 

INTEREST OF L.M., A CHILD

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 321ST 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

On March 21, 2018, the clerk of this Court notified Appellant, Jody McCreary, that the 

filing fee in this appeal is due. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit 

the filing fee on or before April 2, 2018, would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, 

including dismissal of the case without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). The date for 

remitting the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request or 

otherwise responded to our March 21 notice.

Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered April 11, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 11, 2018

NO. 12-18-00063-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF ALMA HERNANDEZ

AND JODY MCCREARY AND IN THE INTEREST OF L.M., A CHILD

Appeal from the 321st District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 17-1505-D)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

** **

**I, John C. Pintozzi, certify that:**

** **

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Allstate LifeInsurance Company;

 

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)                          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)                         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)                          Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

5.   The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)                          All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)                         Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

August 6, 2007
|   | /s/ John C. Pintozzi       |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | John C. Pintozzi           |
|   | Senior Vice  President and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

E-4

----
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50162 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CURTIS MODKINS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. CR-W-91-86-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 24, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Curtis Modkins has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, (1967), and

we have independently reviewed counsel's brief and the record, and

found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.