alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10340 Summary Calendar

MICKEY FRANK PRYOR , Petitioner

- Appellant

v.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CV

- 808

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mickey Frank Pryor, Texas prisoner # 1536612, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as barred by the limitations

per iod of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In support of his claims of error, Pryor argues that he properly filed a seco nd state habeas application ; the se cond application

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 11, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10340 Document: 00513305211 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2015No. 14

- 10340

2 tolled the limitations period pursuant to § 2244(d)(2) ; and, based on the tolling,
h is § 2254 petition was timely filed. The record contains no proof that Pryor filed a second state habeas application, m uch less a properly

- filed application that tolled the limitations period under § 2244(d)(2). Specifically, t he state court record s submitted in the district court , which are entitled to a presumption of regularity, see Webster v. Estelle , 505 F.2d 926, 92 9

- 30 (5th Cir. 1974), d o not contain the second application that Pryor purport edly filed. Pryor has never submitted the application, and the assertions made in this court, offered as proof of such a filing, are too vague to show he properly filed a second state habeas application. See Ross v. Estelle , 694 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1983). Finally , the record , as supplemented by an unopposed motion, indicates that a second application was not part of the state court’s official record and that there w as no proof that Pryor ever filed one. In light of the foregoing, we find no error, plain or otherwise, in the district court’s ruling regarding § 2244(d)

. See Salts v. Epps , 676 F.3d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 2012) ; S tarns v. Andrews , 524 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Ci r. 2008)

. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 14-10340 Document: 00513305211 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2015
AO 450 (Rev. 11/11) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

u the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus post judgment interest at the rate of % per annum, along with costs.

u the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

u other:

.

This action was (check one):

u tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

u tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

u decided by Judge on a motion for

.

Date: CLERK OF COURT

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

5/1/2019

 Southern District of Ohio

Carletta Wilson

3:17-cv-289

Commissioner of Social Security

✔ Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED in full; case is REMANDED to the Social Security

Administration under sentence 4 of 42 U .S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration; case is TERMINATED on

the Court's docket.

✔ Walter H. Rice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 290A17

Filed 21 September 2018.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

MARCUS MARCEL SMITH

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of 

the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 804 S.E.2d 235 (2017), reversing an order 

denying defendant’s motion to suppress entered on 9 May 2016 by Judge John O. 

Craig III in Superior Court, Forsyth County. On 7 December 2017, the Supreme 

Court allowed petitions for discretionary review of additional issues filed by both the 

State and defendant. Heard in the Supreme Court on 29 August 2018.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney 

General, for the State-appellant/appellee.

Jason Christopher Yoder for defendant-appellant/appellee.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, we reverse the decision of the 

Court of Appeals. With respect to the additional issues raised by the parties’ petitions

for discretionary review, we conclude that discretionary review was improvidently 

allowed. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals as to these matters remains 

undisturbed. 
STATE V. SMITH

Opinion of the Court

-2-

REVERSED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY

ALLOWED.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 333-169425, 333-160261, 333-153283, 333-130018, 333-114164, 333-105318, 333-105317,
333-101320, 333-100763, 333-57782, 333-43574, 333-79573, 333-79553, 333-56905, 333-39747 and
333-28725) of Advent Software, Inc. of our report dated March 9, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
March 9, 2011

---



QuickLinks
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

p0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138773

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138773 COA: 283450 Wayne CC: 07-014660-FH DAMON KEITH PERREO, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28535]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Performance Review Board (PRB) for the Federal Mine Safety and Health 
Review Commission. The PRB reviews the performance appraisals of career 
and non-career senior executives. The PRB makes recommendations 
regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, bonuses, pay 
adjustments, and other appropriate personnel actions.

DATES: Applicable on January 5, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Boyd, Executive Director, Federal 
Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, (202) 434-9910.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Notice announces the appointment of the 
following primary and alternate members to the Federal Mine Safety and 
Health Review Commission PRB:

Primary Members

Michael Cundiff, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d09db9bbb5fe93a5beb4b9b6b690b6b9a3b3b1bcfea4a2b5b1a3a5a2a9feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="420f2b29276c01372c262b242402242b3121232e6c363027233137303b6c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>, Office of Shared 
Services
Jason Hill, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#551f34263a3b7b1d3c393915333c263634397b212730342620272c7b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0eac1d3cfce8ee8c9cccce0c6c9d3c3c1cc8ed4d2c5c1d3d5d2d98ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>, Office of Shared Services
Marisa Anthony, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85c8e4f7ecf6e4abc4ebf1edeaebfcc5e3ecf6e6e4e9abf1f7e0e4f6f0f7fcabe2eaf3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f022e3d263c2e610e213b272021360f29263c2c2e23613b3d2a2e3c3a3d3661282039">[email protected]</span></a>, Fiscal Accounting 
Operations

Alternate Members

    None.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4313(c)(4).

Lisa Boyd,
Executive Director, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-28535 Filed 1-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P


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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4172 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4172

To provide the same penalty rate for taxpayers who voluntarily disclose 
   unreported income from offshore accounts as was afforded Timothy 
Geithner with respect to his failure to pay self-employment taxes with 
   respect to his compensation from the International Monetary Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2009

Mr. Carter (for himself, Mr. Westmoreland, and Mr. Burgess) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide the same penalty rate for taxpayers who voluntarily disclose 
   unreported income from offshore accounts as was afforded Timothy 
Geithner with respect to his failure to pay self-employment taxes with 
   respect to his compensation from the International Monetary Fund.

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

SECTION 1. ZERO PENALTY RATE FOR OFFSHORE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE PROGRAM.

    The penalty assessed under the Internal Revenue Service special 
voluntary disclosure program for unreported income from hidden offshore 
accounts shall not exceed the penalty imposed with respect to Timothy 
Geithner's failure to pay the tax imposed under section 1401 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on his gross income derived from 
employment with the International Monetary Fund.
                                 <all>
```
# WVNG joins SPP partner Qatar in virtual exercise

/ Published Nov. 23, 2020

KINGWOOD, W.Va. – The West Virginia National Guard participated in a virtual seminar with members of the Qatari Emiri Land Forces (QELF) as part of the Eastern Action joint operations staff exercise between the Qatari military and the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) Operation Spartan Shield and Task Force Spartan.

Eastern Action is an annual exercise that allows for continued coalition-building between U.S. and Qatari militaries, including joint operational movement and integration. It is designed to improve the defense capabilities of the Qatari military.

The two-day seminar was held virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Led by Lt. Col. Jason Diaz, the WVNG team included Majs. Steve Moore, Joe Ward and Chuck Naumann, and Capts. Charles Thomas and Nicholas Plocar.

Topics covered during the seminar included the military decision-making process (MDMP) and offensive, defensive and engineering operations, including breaching techniques.

The exercise goals were “to promote regional stability, increase joint capability among our friends and allies in the region, and to continue a long-standing partnership between the United States and Qatar,” Diaz said. “The WVNG brings a variety of subject matter expertise to the field with us, which the Qataris are eager and willing to learn about, including our combat engineering experience.”

“This allows the WVNG to play an important role in Operation Spartan Shield, strengthening our defense relationships in the Middle East,” he added.

Since 2018, the WVNG has worked closely with Qatar as part of the National Guard Bureau’s State Partnership Program. The SPP, established in 1993, seeks to conduct military-to-military engagements in support of national defense strategic goals while leveraging whole-of-society relationships and capabilities to facilitate broader engagements spanning military, government, economic and social spheres between the U.S. and partner nations.

The WVNG-Qatar SPP relationship continues to grow, increasing military and diplomatic cooperation, developing and expanding defense capabilities, and disrupting criminal and terrorist activities.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

PRATIBHA NIGAM : CASE NO. 3:17¢v329
Plaintiff,
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
v.

‘WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY

ed

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been
settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties,
provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if
settlement is not consummated.

Parties intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be
aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate
appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry.

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
LAMAR A. LENOIR, : Case No. 1:17-cv-586
Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
vs.
OHIO DEPARMTENT OF
REHABILITATION AND

CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 4)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United
States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate
Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on September 22, 2017,
submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 4). No objections were filed.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has
reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all
of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its
entirety.

Accordingly:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED;


Date:

. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Corrections are DISMISSED;

Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their individual capacities are

" DISMISSED;
. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Ron Watts are DISMISSED;

. Plaintiffs claims premised on Defendants allegedly falsifying reports are

DISMISSED;

. Plaintiffs claims premised on Defendants’ use of threats, slurs, or insults are

DISMISSED;

. Plaintiffs claims against Warden Thomas Schweitzer, Health Care

Administrator Mrs. Smith, and Institutional Inspector Lora Austin are
DISMISSED;

. Plaintiff may proceed with his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants

Kenneth Ritchie, Heather Spellman, Jesse Hubbard, Terry Snelling, Kenneth
Green, and the two unidentified correctional officers in their individual
capacity; and

. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of this Order would not be taken

in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

rola). fomobinds Bhck_

Timothy S. Black’
United States District Judge
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30058

Conference Calendar

 

ROOSEVELT WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; GLEN STEEB, DR.; 

KENNAN BUECHTER, DR.; THAI NGUYEN, DR.; 

VA MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-2040-S

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

August 26, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roosevelt Williams, Jr. appeals the dismissal of his

malpractice suit for failure to file a timely administrative

claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Williams fails to brief

the issue of timeliness, and it is deemed waived. See Hidden

Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036, 1045 n.6 (5th Cir.

1998); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Williams’ appeal is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
No. 99-30058

-2-

APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of NEW FIBER CLOTH TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: August 14, 2007 /s/Yao DeRong
Yao DeRong,
Chief Executive Officer/s/Quing Hua Sun
Qing Hua Sun,
Chief Financial Officer
Case: 3:17-cv-00275-WHR Doc #: 90 Filed: 10/01/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 2199
Case: 3:17-cv-00275-WHR Doc #: 90 Filed: 10/01/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 2200
(tp - per Judge Rice authorization 

after his review)

Case: 3:17-cv-00275-WHR Doc #: 90 Filed: 10/01/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 2201
#### Rich, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*Johnson, Defendant in Error.

In an action of covenant to recover damages for the breach or failure of a covenant of seizen contained in a deed, the measure of damages which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, is the consideration mentioned in the deed, and the interest thereon for six years from the time of the breach, for 'for so -long a time as, by the local law, *mesne*profits are recoverable, after the breach has occurred.

Errol’ to the Jále territorial District 'Court‘of Racine Co.

This was an action of covenant for the recovery of damages, on the failure of title in a deed executed by the defendant to the'plaintiff in the Court below. The declaration assigned several breaches, on which issue was taken. The cause was tried in the Racine District Court, at the April term, 1847, and a judgment was obtained in favor of the plaintiff below, against the 'defendant below, for the sum of four hundred and seven dollars and fifty-four cents.

On the trial the plaintiff below introduced a duly exemplified record of one of the Courts of Record of the State of Illinois, showing the proceedings whereby a mortgage, executed by the defendant below, upon the conveyed premises, had been foreclosed, and the premises sold. He also produced the' record of the deed, for the breach of the covenant whereon the action was brought.

The judge who tried the cause charged the jury that the record (in proof) showed a sufficient breach of the covenants in the deed, to enable the plaintiff below to recover.

That the amount of damages which the plaintiff was entitled to recover was the consideration expressed in the *20deed executed by the deféndant to the plaintiff, with interest, to *the*time of trial; and the jury so found.

To these charges arid opinions the counsel for the defendant below took exceptions, and brought his writ of error.

*Evans,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*Chatfield,*for Defendant in Error.

*By the Court*

Stow, C. J.

We do not think it necessary to examine the numerous points made on the argument of this writ of error, as we are of opinion that the judgment must be reversed on a ground not involving the principal questions in the case. Under the direction of the Court below, the jury, in assessing the damages,added *to*the consideration expressed in the deed, interest from its execution to the day of trial — being 4 period of something more than ten years. In giving this direction, wo think the learned Judge, before whom the cause was tried, erred. Though *the*measure of damages in actions on con venan ts of seizen g.nd warranty, is not uniform throughout the United States, the prevailing, and we think the better rule is, to allow but six years’ interest, or interest for the time for which mesne profits are recoverable. 13 *Johnson's R.,*50; 4 *Dallas,*441; *2 Bibb,*273; 1 *H. and M.,*202; 1 *McCord,*466; *2 Rand.*122; 1 *Brown,*161. And this rule this Court now adopts. For this reason, the judgment of the late District Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Eacjne Circuit, for the further action of that Court.

Judgment reversed,
P.1 

OAR Box 1103 

Prepped by RyanDugan 

Document Number: 

91) IV-C-3 

Docket Number: 

A-83-41 

Printed 4/11/2008 1:50:51 PM Sheet 91 of 174 
P.2 

FEB - 3 1995 

Diana Salisbury 

Community Awareness Project 

7019 Ashridge Arnheim Road 

Sardinia, Ohio 45171 

Dear Ms. Salisbury: 

This is in response to your letter of January 29, 1995, 

requesting an extension of three months in the comment period on 

the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed 

recommendations on Federal Radiation Protection Guidance, for 

Exposure of the General Public. 

We have carefully considered your request for an extension of 

the formal period of comment on these proposed recommenda-tions, 

and have decided not to grant your request at this time. We will 

re-evaluate this decision following the public hearing to be held 

February 22-23, 1995, in Washington, DC. Please be assured, 

however, that we will make every effort to consider comments 

received after the expiration of the formal comment period, and 

that the process of developing final recommendations will extend 

well past the extension you have requested. 

Sincerely, 

t y~>< 

Allan CB . Richardson 

Deputy Director for Federal 

Guidance 

Criteria & Standards Division 

Office of Radiation Programs 

Enclosure 

bcc: Region 5