alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 3:17CR208 

 

 Plaintiff, : Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 

 v. : 

 

DEMARIO D. GRIFFITH, : 

 Defendant. : 

 

FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE 

Upon the United States’ Motion for Final Order of Forfeiture and the Court’s review of the 

record, the Court HEREBY FINDS THAT: 

On August 1, 2018, the Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture, finding that all 

right, title, and interest in the following property (the “subject property”) had been forfeited to the 

United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c): 

a. Glock 45, Model 21, 45 caliber pistol, SN: NHN810; 

b. Laser site attached to Glock 45 pistol; 

c. Springfield Armory Model XD-9 sub-compact 9mm pistol, SN: US807638; 

d. 18 rounds of 9mm ammunition from Springfield Armory pistol; 

e. Mossberg Int. Model 715T 22 caliber Rifle, SN: EM13901831; 

f. Sporter 7.62x39 rifle, SN: S035276; 

g. 4 rounds of 7.62x39 ammunition from Sporter 7.62x39 rifle; and 

h. Saiga 7.62x39 rifle, SN: H03101332. 

The Court also found that the defendant had an interest in the subject property and directed 

the United States to seize the subject property and to give notice of its intent to forfeit the property. 

The United States gave electronic notice through the CM/ECF notification system of the 

Motion for Preliminary Order of Forfeiture to counsel for the defendant, and the defendant did not 

object to the forfeiture. 
2 

On August 27, 2018, the Court held the defendant’s sentencing hearing and announced the 

forfeiture of the subject property. The Judgment establishes that the defendant shall forfeit the 

subject property to the United States. 

The United States published notice of this forfeiture action and of its intent to dispose of 

the subject property in accordance with the law on an official internet government forfeiture site 

(www.forfeiture.gov) for at least 30 consecutive days, beginning on August 2, 2018. 

The United States did not send direct written notice of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture 

because no person or entity reasonably appeared to be a potential claimant with standing to contest 

the forfeiture of the subject property in the ancillary proceeding. 

No person or entity has filed a timely petition with the Court asserting any interest in the 

subject property or objecting to its proposed forfeiture. 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. All right, title, and interest in the subject property is condemned and forfeited to the 

United States under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and no right, title, or interest 

shall remain in any other person or entity. 

2. The United States shall dispose of the subject property in accordance with the law. 

3. The United States District Court shall retain jurisdiction in the case for the purpose 

of enforcing this Final Order of Forfeiture. 

SO ORDERED: 

Dated: July 29, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ____________________________________ 

THOMAS M. ROSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00067-CV

SHARLOTTE WADE GARDNER,

Appellant

v.

CURTIS CAPPS,

Appellee

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-002945-CV-361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sharlotte Wade Gardner appealed the trial court’s Decree Ordering Partition and 

Appointing Commissioners. By a notice, received and filed on June 30, 2022, the Court 

was advised that the issues on appeal between the parties had become moot pursuant to 

a settlement in which the ownership of the disputed interest in real property had been 

conveyed to the other party. 

The Court has no jurisdiction over moot issues. See e.g. Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 

369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) ("If a case is or becomes moot, the court must vacate any 
Gardner v. Capps Page 2

order or judgment previously issued and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction."). 

Gardner was warned by the Clerk of this Court in a letter dated July 18, 2022, that the 

appeal would be dismissed as moot unless, within 14 days from the date of the letter, 

Gardner filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.

More than 14 days have passed, and Gardner has not responded. Accordingly, 

this appeal is dismissed. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Rose1

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 10, 2022

[CV06]

1 The Honorable Jeff Rose, Former Chief Justice of the Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the 

Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00844]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)).
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 17, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Erien O. Terry, Assistant Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments 
can also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8f9c8c8d4d1dbd9ccd1d7d6cb96fbd7d5d5ddd6cccbf8d9ccd496decada96d7cadf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="511021213d38323025383e3f227f123e3c3c343f25221130253d7f3723337f3e2336">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Carver Financial Corporation, Savannah, Georgia; to acquire 
Alamerica BancCorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire its 
subsidiary, Alamerica Bank, both of Birmingham, Alabama.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 12, 
2022.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-00844 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LYNN A. PADGETT,

Petitioner

v.

BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, 

JEFFREY A. SMITH AND ROBERT 

MCGUINESS, AND DANIEL J. BARRETT,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 530 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DANIEL J. VILLA, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3
v. NO. 33,880 4 NANCY MOLINA, 5 Respondent-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY 7 Daniel Viramontes, District Judge 8 DeLaney & Hernandez, LLC 9 Amy C. DeLaney-Hernandez 10 Deming, NM 11 for Appellant 12 Couture Law 13 Rosalie Fragoso 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 for Appellee 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VANZI, Judge. 182 {1} Petitioner appeals from a district court order dismissing his petition for custody 1 of his minor child. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Respondent filed 2 a memorandum in support; Petitioner has not filed a memorandum in opposition, and 3 the time for doing so has expired. See Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA. Accordingly, we 4 affirm the district court. See Frick v. Veazey , 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 5 861 P.2d 287 (“Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of 6 the disposition proposed in the calendar notice.”). 7 {2} AFFIRMED. 8 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

__________________________________ 10 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 11 WE CONCUR: 12

_________________________________ 13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 14

_________________________________ 15 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 16
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Everhome Mortgage Company, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00014

- CV v.

Caroline King a/k/a Caroline Wilson, Appellee Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 80296 ).

O pinion delivered by Justice Moseley,

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the joint motion of the parties to

dismiss the appeal by agreement should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that e ach party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

RENDERED JUNE 26, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
ascenttum

C A fH 7

August 15. 2317

Cental Usa Wreless. LLC

6600 GOVERNORS HILL DR STE 160

CINCINNATI OH 45249

RE; ^»ntium Capital LLC Agreement Number 2167754 Past Due 7/1/17 $6612..84

DEMAND FOR PAYl>efr

Ladies aid GentJemen:

Ascentium Capital LLC or its pre<l«»ssor in interest fAscwlum") entwed into the above^eferwced

Agreem«it wth you. The AgreOT«it fe in default die to n«i-paymenl Thwe has been a Mure to

adequately address toe acoimulated daincyj^cy, and as a result toe total past die arount is now

$6,612.84.

Demand is hereby made on you for payment of toe entire past die amint witoin ten (10) daj^ from toe

date of tiis letter. Lfol^ tiis demand is 5mely and iilly saisfed. or this matter is oto^se resolve in

waittoi documentalicm atxepteble to Ascenlum in its sole (fecreSon, Ascenium may take all fortoer steps it

deerr^ siprc^riate, inrdiding and wtooit Irritation ocmmencing a legal action against any or dl applicable

entities or hdwdials. Other remedies avalable to Ascoitium consist of, but are not intited to; acratotion

of dl remaining amounts die, reprasessiwi of toe equipment and recovery of attorney fees and costs

diould l^al acticsi become necessary. If Asc^tium fcxoed to ile suit you will not only lose toe use of toe

etMiprwit but may be atojected to a substantial ijdgment as well as fees in defending yxir actions.

If ary payment less than toe hddbtedness detemraned by toe demand above is deivered to Ascentium,

such pa^mait wi!l be awriied to said hdebtedness ^n any sequwce Ascentium selects in its sde

dscretion), wito fell testation of dt of Ascentium’s rights and tansies sid witiffljt v^iv^ of a pr^dice

to aiy of Ascenfium’s tights or twiedies. Moreovffl-, any sudr partial payment shall not cure any ^fault

ifider toe Agreement aid such paymwit shall notbe an dtoti'csi or modilcation of his demand.

This letter is not an dWndusive statement of Ascentium’s tights a remedies against any person or entity.

Moreover, notoing stated in or omitted tm this letter is a waiver of, cn' has aiy adverse effect on, aiy of

AscenSum’s rights w remedies, and dl such rights and remedies ae cumdaSve, may be ecerdsed

anuitaneousJy, and ae etpressly reserved.

This is a kxmal demand aid it is recommended hat you govern your aciiwis aoctefdngly.

Qncerely,

Ascentium Capital LLC

Carios Galvez

Account Representative

877.568.5915 ext 2083

EXHIBIT

I

,0

381-201IS0224 C-3

Case: 1:17-cv-00744-SKB Doc #: 1-6 Filed: 11/06/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 24
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4495 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4495

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, as the ``Jim Kolbe Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2010

 Ms. Giffords (for herself, Mrs. Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Mr. Pastor of 
Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Flake, 
 and Mr. Shadegg) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, as the ``Jim Kolbe Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. JIM KOLBE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 North Taylor Lane in Patagonia, Arizona, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Jim Kolbe Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Jim Kolbe 
Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
# Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

1720 Big Lake RJ

. Cloquet. MN 55720 Phone c21 k) R79-..J. .'i 93 Fax (21Rl**~79- -J.** **I-1-6**

Chatn'<>lllall Karen R. Dhcr S.:L**rctar~** iTr.:"'urcr Ferdinand 1\lartincau, Jr. Dt'l I I cpn:,cnta!J\<: \\all) Dupuis [)1,1 I I Rcprc,cnta!l' L' l>a\ id R. Ticsscn, .Jr. J)J,t 111**RcprL·,cnt<~ t\c**  J\:c, in R. Dupu is, Sr. I·\ccuti,·c Dtrcctnr. 1 ri 1al Pmgranh Chuck \\" alt 1:\ccutt\ c Din:ctor. Entnprt''-'' \lirhad Himango 

# Reservation Business Committee

July 1, 2014 Mr. Fred Leutner Office of Science & Technology (Mail Code 4305T) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460 E-mail Leutner.Fred@epa.gov RE: Potential Reinterpretation ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA) Provisions regarding Treatment in a Similar Manner to States (TAS) Dear Mr. Leutner: The Fond duLac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the Band) is pleased to submit comments in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as it considers a reinterpretation ofthe rules governing tribal application for Treatment as an Affected State (TAS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for Section 303(c), Water Quality Standards. Currently, Tribes must demonstrate their own inherent regulatory authority, which can be challenging and resource intensive. The potential reinterpretation, which would eliminate the "Montana Test" by stating that CWA Section 518 is a delegation by Congress to eligible Tribes to administer CW A regulatory programs over their entire reservations regardless of land ownership, will allow Tribes to exercise their sovereignty by our ability and willingness to accept this delegation. The Band successfully applied to EPA for TAS under the CW A in May 1996, and received full approval of our Water Quality Standards in December 2001. Our experience with the T AS requirements was much simpler than that which most tribes today face, and we were able to complete our application entirely with existing staff and in-house legal department, unlike many tribes who face stiff challenges to their exercise ofsovereign authority over tribal waters. The Band believes EPA's proposed reinterpretation will clarify and strengthen the inherent regulatory authority of sovereign tribes to implement EPA statutes within reservations regardless of land ownership. Reinterpretation would validate the legal basis for tribal assertion of regulatory jurisdiction under the CW A and decrease the administrative burden ofcase-by-case assessments oftribal authority As Tribal leader ofthe Fond duLac Band ofLake Superior Chippewa, I support EPA's efforts to reinterpret provisions of the CWA regarding the TAS process. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this potential rule change. Respectfully,

# i~**~** Chairwoman
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2409

IN RE: DAVID A. STEBBINS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(1:14-cv-00961-CMH-TCB; 1:14-cv-01267-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Stebbins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David A. Stebbins, who has two civil actions pending in the 

district court, petitions for a writ of mandamus alleging the 

district court has unduly delayed acting on a summary judgment 

motion pending in one of the actions, and that it has delayed 

ruling on a motion for joinder of parties pending in the other 

civil action. He seeks an order from this court directing the 

district court to act. Our review of the district court’s 

dockets reveals that the district court granted the summary 

judgment motion and denied Stebbins’ motion for joinder. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

PETITION DENIED
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








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 Inhibiton Therapeutics, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2006, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Henry
      Fong, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 SecuritiesExchange
                Act of 1934; and




(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financialcondition
                and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for the periods
                presented in theReport.








/s/
                Henry FongHenry
                FongPrincipal
                Executive Officer and
              Principal
                Financial OfficerSeptember
                19, 2006








A
      SIGNED
      ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED
      TO
      INHIBITON THERAPEUTICS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY INHIBITON THERAPEUTICS,
      INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
      REQUEST.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6463

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT LEE WINFIELD, JR., a/k/a Tubbs,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, Senior District 

Judge. (2:95-cr-00193-REP-1)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Kosky, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Stephen David 

Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; 

Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport 

News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence 

reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Winfield, No. 2:95-cr-00193-REP1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 22, 2016). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4463 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4463

To require that all foreign terrorists with links to terrorist networks 
  who attack the United States or its Government be considered enemy 
   combatants to be tried by military tribunals instead of civilian 
                                courts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2010

 Mr. Buchanan (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Burton 
  of Indiana, Mr. Souder, Mr. Rooney, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
    Platts, Mr. Harper, and Mr. Kline of Minnesota) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, 
 and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that all foreign terrorists with links to terrorist networks 
  who attack the United States or its Government be considered enemy 
   combatants to be tried by military tribunals instead of civilian 
                                courts.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Tribunals for Terrorists 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. TRIAL OF FOREIGN TERRORISTS.

    After the date of the enactment of this Act, any foreign national, 
who--
            (1) engages or has engaged in conduct constituting an 
        offense relating to a terrorist attack against persons or 
        property in the United States or against any United States 
        Government property or personnel outside the United States; and
            (2) is subject to trial for that offense by a military 
        commission under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code;
shall be tried for that offense only by a military commission under 
that chapter.
                                 <all>
```