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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1203

STEVEN T. CORBIN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

LEE J. LOFTUS AND JMO FINANCE STAFF, Department of 

Justice/Justice Management Division; TILTON & BERNSTEIN 

MANAGEMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-02118-RWT)

Submitted: November 7, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven T. Corbin, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Elizabeth Andersen, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Lee J. 

Loftus and JMO Finance Staff.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven T. Corbin appeals the district court’s order 

granting Lee J. Loftus and JMO Finance Staff’s motion to dismiss

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and dismissing his 

complaint as to all parties. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm substantially for the 

reasons stated by the district court.* Corbin v. Loftus, No. 

8:15-cv-02118-RWT (D. Md. Nov. 10, 2015). We also deny Corbin’s 

petitions for a writ of mandamus and his pending motions. 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.

AFFIRMED

 * To the extent that Corbin seeks to challenge the removal 

of another currently pending civil action, Corbin v. Lynch, No. 

8:16-cv-01495-RWT (D. Md. May 18, 2016), his notice of appeal 

did not designate a decision or judgment in that case, see Fed. 

R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B), and there has been no ruling by the 

district court on a motion to remand.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 05, 2023. 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, December 05, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0155. RESIDE PARTNERS, LLC et al v. GWINNETT COUNTY, GEORGIA et al.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 23A04102
#### In Re Anonymous No. 36 D.B. 84

Disciplinary Docket Board No. 36 D.B. 84.

*275March 5, 1985

ORDER OF THE BOARD

Daniels, Chairman,

And now, this March 5, 1985, the report and recommendation of hearing committee [ ] dated November 26, 1984, finding that no violation had been established and that the petition for discipline be dismissed is accepted; and it is ordered and decreed that the charges against [respondent] be dismissed.
CHRISTOPHER STEWART,

Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY, FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-0921

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

Christopher Stewart, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Mark Urban, Assistant Attorney General, and 

Kenneth Steely, General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of 

Corrections.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 07-1218 ESSO STANDARD OIL CO. (PUERTO RICO), Plaintiff, Appellee,

v . CARLOS W. LÓPEZ-FREYTES, in his personal and official capacities as President of the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board; FLOR DEL VALLE-LÓPEZ, in her official capacity as Associate Member of the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board; ANGEL BERRÍOS-SILVESTRE, in his official capacity as Associate Member of the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board; NORMAN VELÁZQUEZ-TORRES, in his official capacity as Attorney of the Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board, Defendants, Appellants.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on April 10, 2008, is amended as follows: On page 25, line 14: "defendants assertions" should be "defendants' assertions"
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0018 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-060-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of DDi Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Mikel Williams, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company. Date: May 5, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Mikel WilliamsMikel WilliamsSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 23, 2016

Order 

Clerk

March 23, 2016

150695(126)

In re APPLICATION OF MICHIGAN ELECTRIC

TRANSMISSION COMPANY FOR

TRANSMISSION LINE

_________________________________________

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF OSHTEMO,

Appellant,

SC: 150695

v COA: 317893

MPSC No.: 00-017041

MICHIGAN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION

COMPANY, LLC,

Petitioner-Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of appellee Michigan Public Service 

Commission to extend the time for filing its brief is GRANTED. The brief will be 

accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before March 25, 2016.
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This document provides notice of the availability of Application Packages for the 2016 Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program.

# DATES:

Application instructions are available electronically from the IRS on May 1, 2015 by visiting: IRS.gov (key word search—“TCE”) or through Grants.gov. The deadline for submitting an application package to the IRS for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program is May 31, 2015. However, because this date falls on a non-workday the deadline is being extended until Monday, June 1, 2015. All applications must be submitted through Grants.gov.

# ADDRESSES:

Internal Revenue Service, Grant Program Office, 5000 Ellin Road, NCFB C4-110, SE:W:CAR:SPEC:FO:GPO, Lanham, Maryland 20706.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Grant Program Office via their email address at                         *tce.grant.office@irs.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Authority for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE) Program is contained in Section 163 of the Revenue Act of 1978, Public Law 95-600, (92 Stat. 12810), November 6, 1978. Regulations were published in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 44 FR 72113 on December 13, 1979. Section 163 gives the IRS authority to enter into cooperative agreements with private or public non-profit agencies or organizations to establish a network of trained volunteers to provide free tax information and return preparation assistance to elderly individuals. Elderly individuals are defined as individuals age 60 and over at the close of their taxable year. Because applications are being solicited before the FY 2016 budget has been approved, cooperative agreements will be entered into subject to the appropriation of funds.                

Dated: March 23, 2015.

Mikki Betker, 

Chief, Grant Program Office, IRS, Stakeholder Partnerships, Education & Communication.

[FR Doc. 2015-07588 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# C_2016061EN.01000401.xml

| 17.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 February 2016

(2016/C 61/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1166 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,02 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4644 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77580 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4742 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1018 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6049 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,029 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,75 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4062 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4613 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3023 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5605 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5430 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6950 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6931 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5656 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 358,70 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5669 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2741 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6170 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 997,87 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6685 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,050 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,4489 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,790 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4833 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,0457 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,3985 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1166

JPY

Japanese yen

127,02

DKK

Danish krone

7,4644

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77580

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4742

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1018

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6049

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,029

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,75

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4062

RON

Romanian leu

4,4613

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3023

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5605

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5430

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6950

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6931

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5656

KRW

South Korean won

1 358,70

ZAR

South African rand

17,5669

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2741

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6170

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 997,87

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6685

PHP

Philippine peso

53,050

RUB

Russian rouble

86,4489

THB

Thai baht

39,790

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4833

MXN

Mexican peso

21,0457

INR

Indian rupee

76,3985

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06977]



[[Page 16491]]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINSTRATION


Announcement of Open Federal Advisory Committee Meetings

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

ACTION: Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The SBA is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, 
time and agenda for the 3rd quarter meetings of the National Small 
Business Development Center (SBDC) Advisory Board.

DATES: The meetings for the 3rd quarter will be held on the following 
dates:

Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. EST
Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. EST
Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. EST

ADDRESSES: These meetings will be held via conference call.

FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: These meetings are open to the public 
however advance notice of attendance is requested. Anyone wishing to be 
a listening participant must contact Alanna Falcone by mail, fax, or 
email at Alanna Falcone, U.S. Small Business Administration, Financial 
Program Analyst, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416; Phone: 
202-619-1612; Fax: 202-481-0134; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c2a3aea3acaca3eca4a3aea1adaca782b1a0a3eca5adb4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f6e636e61616e21696e636c60616a4f7c6d6e21686079">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Additionally, if you need accommodations because of a disability or 
require additional information, please contact Alanna Falcone at the 
information above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), SBA announces the 
meetings of the National SBDC Advisory Board. This Board provides 
advice and counsel to the SBA Administrator and Associate Administrator 
for Small Business Development Centers.
    The purpose of these meetings is to discuss following issues 
pertaining to the SBDC Advisory Board:

<bullet> SBA Update
<bullet> Annual Meetings
<bullet> Board Assignments
<bullet> Member Roundtable

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 648(i).

    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Miguel J. L'Heureaux,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-06977 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Snell v. Nickles.

*Statutory demurrer to set-off or counter-claim*— Practice *Act of May lb, 1915.*

1. Under section 15 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, a set-off or counter-claim may be attacked by a reply raising a question of law.

2. Defects in the form of a pleading may be attacked by a motion to strike off; defects in substance, by a statutory demurrer.

3. A set-off or counter-claim in the nature of a tort setting up a fraud practiced upon the plaintiff is bad and will be stricken off.

Statutory demurrer to counter-claim. C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1921, No. 7517.

*L. B. Schofield,*for plaintiff; *J. B. Lichtenberger,*for defendant.

April 21, 1922.

Bartlett, J.,

This case came on for hearing on the argument list for disposition of a question of law raised in the reply to a counterclaim set up in the defendant’s affidavit of defence; likewise raising the question as to whether this was the proper practice. No formal motion was filed.

The record in the case shows the plaintiff brought an action in *assumpsit*to recover on three promissory notes.

To the statement of claim defendant filed his affidavit of defence, setting up a counter-claim, to which counter-claim the plaintiff filed a reply in the nature of a demurrer.

Section 14 of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, provides: “In actions of *assumpsit,*a defendant may set off or set up by way of counterclaim against the claim of the plaintiff any right or claim for which an action of *assumpsit*would lie, and a verdict may be rendered in his favor for the amount found to be due, and judgment entered thereon. If in any case in which the defendant sets up a counter-claim the action of the plaintiff is discontinued, dismissed or a voluntary non-suit suffered, the counter-claim, nevertheless, may be proceeded with.”

*488Section 15 of the Practice Act of 1915 provides, *inter alia:*“The set-off or counter-claim shall be regarded as the defendant’s statement of claim, and the plaintiff’s reply as an affidavit of defence thereto.”

In the case at bar, therefore, the defendant’s set-off or counter-claim is to be regarded as his statement of claim, and as a statement of claim may be attacked by an affidavit of defence raising a question of law, we see no reason why a set-off or counter-claim should not be attacked in the same manner.

Defects in form may be attacked by motions to strike off; defects in substance by the plaintiff’s reply raising questions of law.

In the case at bar the set-off or counter-claim is one in the nature of a tort, setting up a fraud practiced upon the plaintiff.

The Practice Act provides that set-off or counter-claim, to be good in law, must be “any right or claim for which an action of *assumpsit*would lie.”

For the above reason, we regard it proper practice to attack the counterclaim, as was done by the plaintiff in this case, and the court, therefore, sustains the question of law raised by the reply filed, and the counter-claim of the defendant, as filed in his affidavit of defence, is stricken off.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, Nos. 333-42743, 333-62131, 333-73087, 333-83229, 333-87493,
333-61746, 333-108136, 333-115577, and Form S-4 Nos. 333-112711 and 333-112765)
of NCO Group, Inc. of our reports dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of NCO Group, Inc., NCO Group, Inc.
management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
NCO Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2005.



                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 15, 2006
#### Connor’s Estate.

*Wills*— Gift *of share of residue*— Lapse—Act *of June 7, 1917.*

Under section 15 (0) of the Wills Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 403, where the general residue is bequeathed in equal shares to several legatees, their heirs and assigns forever, the share of any one of them dying in testator’s lifetime without issue passes to the survivors.

Exceptions to adjudication. O. C. Phila. Co., Oct. T., 1921, No. 384.

*Cameron & Carey,*for exceptions; *Patrick H. Lynch,*contra.

June 23, 1922.

Gumímey, J.,

Mary Connor having bequeathed the residue of her estate to her son, Charles J. Connor, and her daughter, Mary E. Dempsey, their heirs and assigns forever, to be divided equally between them share and share alike, and Charles J. Connor having died in his mother’s lifetime without issue, the auditing judge awarded the *whole*of the residuary estate to the surviving beneficiary, Mary E. Dempsey, in pursuance of section 15 (c) of the Wills Act of June 7, 1917, P. L. 403, which provides that if a bequest in the residuary clause of a will fails or is void, it shall pass to the other residuary legatees unless the will shows an intention to the contrary. We do not see how the auditing judge could have done otherwise in view of our decision in Mitchell’s Estate, No. 241, April Term, 1921, affirmed by the Superior Court on March 3, 1922, not yet reported; it should be remembered, however, that Charles J. Connor died without issue; his children, if he had left any, would have taken his share under section 15 *(a)*of the Wills Act of 1917.

The appeal in Mitchell’s Estate, *supra,*had not been disposed of by the Superior Court at the time of the audit and, therefore, the auditing judge directed that one-half of the residuary estate should be retained by the accountant pending the result of that appeal; as the reason for this order no longer exists, it is hereby vacated, the exceptions are dismissed, the entire residuary estate is awarded to Mary E. Dempsey in her own right, and the adjudication as hereby amended is confirmed absolutely.