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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELI STAFFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (4:10-cr-00075-FL-1; 4:14-cv-00193-FL)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eli Stafford, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, John 

Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eli Stafford seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and the order 

denying Stafford’s motions to alter or amend the judgment. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 

Stafford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 
3

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 * Stafford obtained authorization from this court to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion to raise a claim based on 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). That 

authorized successive motion is currently pending in the 

district court and is not the subject of this appeal.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : No. 109 WM 2016
Respondent
Vv.
Victor A. Gardner,

Petitioner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 5" day of December, 2016, the application to exceed word count
limit is granted. The petition for allowance of appeal submitted on November 3, 2016
shall be accepted for filing. The Respondent shall have fourteen days from the date of

this order to file an answer or a letter stating that an answer will not be filed.

Aw AVL

Deputy Prothonotary
# C_2016031EN.01000101.xml

| 28.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7887 — Goldman Sachs/Astorg Asset Management/HRA Pharma)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 31/01)

On 21 January 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7887. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7887. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,614
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,977
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      8,593
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,836
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,859
<LOANS>                                         46,636
<ALLOWANCE>                                        790
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,820
<DEPOSITS>                                      55,557
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                163
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  66,820
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,958
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  794
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   483
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,236
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,426
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,426
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,810
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,289
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,289
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.10
<LOANS-NON>                                        103
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    87
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   806
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       24
<RECOVERIES>                                         8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  790
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               560
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            230
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016016EN.01000101.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 016/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 7, 11.1.2016..

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 429, 21.12.2015

OJ C 414, 14.12.2015

OJ C 406, 7.12.2015

OJ C 398, 30.11.2015

OJ C 389, 23.11.2015

OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30565

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAMIEN WOODS, Also Known as Pimp,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

No. 2:05-CR-243-6

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Damien Woods, federal prisoner # 25924-034, appeals the denial of his

motion to compel the government to file a motion to reduce his sentence purUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 22, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-30565 Document: 00511797324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2012
No. 11-30565

suant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). On motion of the government, a court may reduce a sentence to reflect substantial assistance in the

investigation or prosecution of another offender. FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(b). 

Where the government has agreed to file a Rule 35(b) motion and then

refuses to do so, such refusal is not reviewable unless it is based on an “unconstitutional motive,” Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992); United

States v. Sneed, 63 F.3d 381, 389 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995), which means a motive

based on “race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise

of protected statutory and constitutional rights,” Wayte v. United States, 470

U.S. 598, 608 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Wade,

504 U.S. at 185 (citing Wayte, 470 U.S. at 608-09). The defendant must make “a

substantial threshold showing that the government’s refusal is based upon

unconstitutional motives.” Sneed, 63 F.3d at 389 n.6 (internal quotation marks

and citations omitted).

Woods has failed to make that showing. See id. He has not asserted that

the government was motivated by a discriminatory reason. See United States

v. Urbani, 967 F.2d 106, 109 (5th Cir. 1992). He has also not claimed that the

government sought to deprive him of due process by refusing to file a Rule 35(b)

motion, to the extent that depriving a defendant of due process could be a constitutionally suspect reason.

The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-30565 Document: 00511797324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2012
#### Jones vs. Spencer.

October 11.

A judgment rendered in an attachment suit in a court of another state, where there was no service upon the defendant and no appearance by him, binds only property of the defendant in such state.

No action can be maintained in this state upon such a judgment.

ERROR to the Circuit Court for *Kenosha*County.

The case is stated by the court. Judgment was rendered in the circuit court for the plaintiff.

*O. S. & F. H.*Head, for plaintiff in error.

*Webster fy Schoff,*for defendant in error.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

The only question presented in this case is, whether a judgment rendered in an attachment suit in a court of another state, where there was no service upon the defendant and no appearance by him, is binding upon him in this state. We suppose it to be well settled that it is not. It is competent for any state to authorize proceedings against property within its j urisdiction, and such proceedings, when conducted according to the laws authorizing them, bind the property proceeded against. They are proceedings *in rem,*and attachment suits, where there is no service, are of this character. Service upon the defendant is not essential to jurisdiction in such a suit. But it is essential to the jurisdiction which enables a court to bind the defendant personally. The record offered in evidence showed on its face that the court which rendered it had no personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and it should have been rejected. *Rape vs. Heaton,*9 Wis., 828; *Jarvis vs. Barrett,*14 Wis., 591.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ELIE RAPHAEL

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2915

[ October 19, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Geoffrey D. Cohen

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14 13281CF10A

.

Elie Raphael, Bonifay, pro se

.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, C.J., W ARNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00619-CR

Jesse FLORES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR1740

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Donna Gayle Holcomb v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-16-00349-CR

Trial court case number: 1141352

Trial court: 230th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the abovereferenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 

1400 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the 

appellate record for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant also requests an 

extension of time to file her pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief.

We grant the motion and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from the 

date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the 

reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant. The trial court clerk shall 

further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon which 

delivery of the record to the appellant is made.

Appellant’s pro se response to appointed counsel’s brief shall be filed within 45 

days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:/s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually 

Date: December 6, 2016
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Delta Financial Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-15835 and 33-88290) on Form S-8 of Delta Financial Corporation of our report
dated March 22, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Delta
Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity
and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31,
2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Delta Financial Corporation. Our report contained an explanatory paragraph
that described the adoption of a new accounting principle as of December 31,
2002.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Melville, New York
March 30, 2004
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2424 

To make available $250,000,000 from the Travel Promotion Fund for the 

Corporation for Travel Promotion. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2021 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To make available $250,000,000 from the Travel Promotion 

Fund for the Corporation for Travel Promotion. 

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 ‘‘Restoring Brand USA 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF TRAVEL PROMOTION FUND FOR 

7 BRAND USA. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 

10 Treasury, subject to subsection (b), and notwithstanding 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2424 IS

1 any other provision of law, shall make available, from un2 obligated balances remaining available from fees collected 

3 before October 1, 2020, and credited to Travel Promotion 

4 Fund established under subsection (d) of the Travel Pro5 motion Act of 2009 (22 U.S.C. 2131(d)), $250,000,000 

6 for the Corporation for Travel Promotion (commonly 

7 known as ‘‘Brand USA’’). Such amounts shall remain 

8 available until expended. 

9 (b) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS

10 AND LIMITATIONS.—The limitations and requirements set 

11 forth in paragraphs (2)(B) and (3) of subsection (d) of 

12 such Act shall not apply to amounts made available under 

13 subsection (a). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed July 7, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0219

Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-0204 AP, 17-5627 SP

________________

United Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Professional Medical Group, Inc.,

a/a/o Irina Torres Suarez,

Appellee.

An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence 

D. King, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

Feiler & Leach, P.L., and Martin E. Leach, for appellee.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant, United Automobile Insurance Company, challenges a final 

judgment granting attorney’s fees in favor of appellee, Professional Medical 

Group, Inc. We are cognizant that at the time the contested judgment was 

rendered, the trial court did not yet have the benefit of United Automobile 

Insurance Co. v. Professional Medical Group, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1102 

(Fla. 3d DCA May 12, 2021), but, bound by our precedent, we reverse and 

remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See also

Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 

1991); Newman v. Newman, 121 So. 3d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); 

Guyton v. Leonard Dewey Wilkinson Action Welding Supply, Inc., 707 So. 

2d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit & Tr. 

Co., 670 So. 2d 1073, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Castranova v. Auth, 590 

So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).

Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.5

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints Asuka Nakahara and William P. Leiser the true and lawful
attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him
and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1997, and to sign any or all amendments to
such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto said attorney or attorneys-in-fact, each of them
with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney or
attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute or substitutes may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                                   /s/ JEFFREY M. HELLER
                                   ----------------------------------
                                   Jeffrey M. Heller


Dated:    March 31, 1998
EXHIBIT A TO SET TEMENT AGREEMENT

For Sherco 1 and 2, which sh are a common stack (SV001)

 Emission limitation for Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ): SO 2 emissions from SV001 shall not exceed 0.05 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis.

 Compliance with the SO 2 emission limit will be determined through use of a continuous emission monitor in accordance with 40 CFR 75.10 and Minnesota Rules 7017.1002 through 7017.1180, as applicable. Compliance with the SO2 limit is determined by dividing the sum of the SO2 emissions for the 30 successive boiler operating days by the sum of the total heat input for the 30 successi ve boiler operating days. For the purpose of this emission limit only, the boiler operati ng day shall mean a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combus ted the entire 24-hour period. Biased data shall be used, fo llowing Appendix A to 40 CFR 75, but not substituted data.

 Initial compliance with this limit shall be demonstrated no later than October 1, 2015.

For Sherco Unit 3, which discharges through SV002

 Emission limitation for Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ): SO 2 emissions from SV002 shall not exceed 0.29 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis.

 Compliance with the SO 2 emission limit will be determined through use of a continuous emission monitor in accordance with 40 CFR 75.10 and Minnesota Rules 7017.1002 through 7017.1180, as applicable. Compliance with the SO2 limit is determined by dividing the sum of the SO2 emissions for the 30 successive boiler operating days by the sum of the total heat input for the 30 successi ve boiler operating days. For the purpose of this emission limit only, the boiler operati ng day shall mean a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combus ted the entire 24-hour period. Biased data shall be used, fo llowing Appendix A to 40 CFR 75, but not substituted data.

 Initial compliance with this limit shall be demonstrated no later than June 1, 2017. CASE 0:12-cv-03043-SRN-JSM Document 68-2 Filed 05/15/15 Page 1 of 1