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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7193

BRUCE WINSTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN HOLLAND; WARDEN MANSUKHANI,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02008-FL)

Submitted: December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Dwayne Winston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Winston, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Winston 

v. Holland, No. 5:19-hc-02008-FL (E.D.N.C. July 15, 2019). 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
#### Christine R. BROWN *v.*ST. VINCENT INFIRMARY, Garnishee

79-120

587 S.W. 2d 7

Opinion delivered September 24, 1979

(Division II)

*522
      *Cearley, Gitchel, Bogará, Mitchell & Bryant,*for appellant.

*J. Gayle Windsor, Jr.,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Christine R. Brown obtained a judgment against James Brown, Jr. in a divorce proceeding for past due child support in the amount of $1450. On September 12, 1978, appellant served a writ of garnishment on her ex-husband’s employer, St. Vincent Infirmary. The return on the writ of garnishment states that it was served upon Lou Hillie. However, the proof shows that St. Vincent Infirmary employs 6 people to answer writs of garnishment on its employees (James Brown, Jr. had had about 20 other writs of garnishment filed against him). Mr. Lou Hillie had been hospitalized shortly prior to the day the writ was served with a severe case of emphysema and never did return to work. One other female employee, in the section where garnishments were handled, was away ill on the day of service. Of the other four employees none were competent to take care of the incoming garnishments in Mr. Lou Hillie’s absence. The writ of garnishment served by appellant was placed in Mr. Hillie’s desk drawer and was not discovered until about October 6, 1978. On that date a response was filed in the Pulaski Circuit Clerk’s office purely because the employees were used to handling such writs with the Pulaski Circuit Court. It was not until October 9, 1978 that a response was filed with the Chancery Clerk in this divorce proceeding. Because of the writ of garnishment, St. Vincent Infirmary had withheld $63.68 from James Brown’s wages on September 29, 1978.

Based upon the foregoing record appellant moved for judgment against St. Vincent Infirmary for $1450. The trial court ruled, however, that the circumstances showed ex*523cusable neglect within the meaning of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 29-401 (Repl. 1962), with respect to a garnishee (employer). We agree with the trial court and affirm.

We agree: Harris, CJ., and Holt and Purtle, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0030

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WELCH,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 7, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 31 2022

08/31/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0030
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DELSHJUAN JONES, 

a.k.a. Delshaun Jones, 

 

 Petitioner, 

 CASE NO. 2:17-CV-192 

 v. JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Vascura 

WARDEN, SOUTHERN OHIO 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 

 Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 On January 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be 

dismissed. (ECF No. 20). Although the parties were advised of the right to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no 

objections have been filed. 

 The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This 

action is hereby DISMISSED. 

Petitioner has failed to exercise his right to appeal by failing to file objections. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

Therefore, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final judgment. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**CHRISTOPHER R. BAKER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 17 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the**  Unpublished Memorandum and Order **of the Superior Court at No. 242 WDA 2014 exited December 11, 2015,**  affirming **the Order of the Potter County Court of Common Pleas at No.**  **CP-53-MD-0000119-1992 exited January 23, 2014** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 25 th**  **day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal** 

**is** GRANTED **on the issue of whether Petitioner’s sentence violates t he prohibition** 

**against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders announced by the Supreme** 

**Court of the United States in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).** 

**As a result of the recent holding by that Court that M iller must be applied retroactively** 

**by the States, see Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016 WL 2 80758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), the** 

**Superior Court’s order is** VACATED **, and the case is** REMANDED **for further**

**proceedings consistent with Montgomery.**

**To the extent necessary, leave is to be granted to ame nd the post-conviction** 

**petition to assert the jurisdictional provision of the Post Conviction Relief Act extending** 

**to the recognition of constitutional rights by the Sup reme Court of the United States** 

**which it deems to be retroactive. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 95 45(b)(1)(iii).** 

**Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
**Exhibit      32**

**Certification      Pursuant to**

**18      U.S.C. Section 1350**

| (1)   | The                Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                registrant.  |

| February                  27, 2007                                    |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                       |   |
| /s/                  Jeffrey R. Immelt                                     |   |
| Jeffrey                  R. ImmeltChief                  Executive Officer |   |
|                                                             |   |
| /s/                  Keith S. Sherin                                       |   |
| Keith                  S. SherinChief                  Financial Officer   |   |
ESA Compliance Assistance

Roger Kohn to: David Jenkins, SHill 02/22/2012 09:25 AM

Cc: Julie Walters

We offered to provide you with sample correspondence that describes generally what we will need to 

ensure ESA compliance, once we have received a final Biological Opinion from the FWS for the PPEC. I 

have attached an example of a letter we send to PSD permit applicants after the FWS issues its 

Biological Opinion. We hope this is helpful.

 Avenal_0901_CvrLtr_ESA-FinalBO.pdf 

Roger Kohn

USEPA Region 9 - Air Division (AIR-3)

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

415-972-3973 

kohn.roger@epa
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

CHRISTOPHER R. BAKER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 17 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Memorandum and 

Order of the Superior Court at No. 242 

WDA 2014 exited December 11, 2015, 

affirming the Order of the Potter 

County Court of Common Pleas at No. 

CP-53-MD-0000119-1992 exited 

January 23, 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 25th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED on the issue of whether Petitioner’s sentence violates the prohibition 

against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders announced by the Supreme 

Court of the United States in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). 

As a result of the recent holding by that Court that Miller must be applied retroactively 

by the States, see Montgomery v. Louisiana, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), the 

Superior Court’s order is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further 

proceedings consistent with Montgomery. 

To the extent necessary, leave is to be granted to amend the post-conviction 

petition to assert the jurisdictional provision of the Post Conviction Relief Act extending 

to the recognition of constitutional rights by the Supreme Court of the United States 

which it deems to be retroactive. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii). 

Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0599

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DOUGLAS LYNN DUBLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 8, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2024

10/03/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0599
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDG MENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00083

- CV

Daniel ROUNDTREE

, Appellant

v.

Chandravadan BHAKTA

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV04583

Honorable J

. Frank Davis , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed agains t appellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

20.

SIGNED September 1, 2021.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez

, Chief Justice
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21262 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SHANNON MAYFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

No. H-01-CR-204-1

-------------------- January 10, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Shannon Mayfield appeals his conviction of, and sentence for, aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Mayfield argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, because there was no evidence that heNo. 01-21262 -2- knew of the presence of the cocaine in his vehicle. He also contends that he should not have received a two-level adjustment under the Sentencing Guidelines for obstruction of justice. Because Mayfield did not renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence, our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to determining whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Johnson , 87 F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996). In light of the ample evidence of Mayfield’s knowing involvement in the cocaine transaction, this standard has not been met. The district court did not clearly err in determining that Mayfield had committed perjury and suborned perjury at trial, thus warranting the adjustment for obstruction of justice. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; United States v. Storm , 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994). This determination did not impinge on Mayfield’s right to defend himself. See United States v. Dunnigan , 507 U.S. 87, 96 (1993); United States v. Como , 53 F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-75 (6)

Judge Marbley

Benjamin J. Owings 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 74) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The Court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: June 22, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge
Exhibit






     Exhibit 10.10




Director Compensation 
  
Each director of A. Schulman, Inc. (the “Corporation”) who is not an employee of the Corporation shall receive an annual retainer fee of $160,000 for attending up to 24 meetings per fiscal year. For each meeting attended in excess of 24 meetings in a calendar year, each director shall receive an additional per meeting fee of $1,500.  Non-employee directors with significant additional duties shall receive the following additional retainers: (i) $200,000 for the non-executive chairperson; (ii) $20,000 for the lead independent director; (iii) $17,500 for the Audit Committee and Compensation Committee chairperson; and (iv) $10,000 for all other committee chairpersons.  One-half of the annual retainer fee for each non-employee director is deliverable in cash on a quarterly basis, and one-half is deliverable in the form of an annual unrestricted stock grant under the Corporation’s equity award plans.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4542 

To prohibit the use of funds made available to the Department of Justice 

to prosecute individuals detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba, in the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2010 

Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. 

MCCAUL, Mr. DENT, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mrs. MILLER of Michigan, Mr. OLSON, Mr. CAO, and Mr. AUSTRIA) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds made available to the Department of Justice to prosecute individuals detained at 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the United 

States. 

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 ‘‘Stopping Criminal 

5 Trials for Guantanamo Terrorists Act of 2010’’. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4542 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

2 FUNDS TO PROSECUTE INDIVIDUALS DE3 TAINED AT NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO 

4 BAY, CUBA, IN THE UNITED STATES. 

5 No funds made available to the Department of Jus6 tice may be used to prosecute an individual who was de7 tained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or 

8 after January 22, 2009, in a criminal court located in the 

9 United States or in any territory or possession of the 

10 United States. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,970
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,223
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,223
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (  747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (  747)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.002)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID DURHAM, Case No. 1:18-cv-0091

Plaintiff, McFarland, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.

 

JERRY NIFFENEGGER, et al., ORDER 

Defendant. 

This matter is before the Court following an informal telephonic discovery conference 

held on March 2, 2022. For the reasons discussed at the conference, the Court orders as follows.

To the extent that plaintiff has noticed the March 7, 2022 discovery deposition of

defendants’ medical expert witness, Dr. James Hawkins, plaintiff is responsible for paying Dr. 

Hawkins’s expert witness fee for the deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E).

Plaintiff objects to paying Dr. Hawkins’s expert witness fee for purposes of taking his 

deposition and made an oral motion to the Court to require defendants pay Dr. Hawkins’s fee. 

Plaintiff argues that defendants’ previous request to exclude plaintiff’s counsel or representative 

from attending Dr. Hawkins’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a) independent medical examination (IME) and 

prohibit the video recording of the examination provides the impetus for plaintiff’s deposition of 

Dr. Hawkins. See Doc. 89. Plaintiff asserts that because defendants caused plaintiff’s need for 

the discovery deposition, this Court should order defendants to pay Dr. Hawkins’s fee.

Defendants argue that plaintiff is obligated to pay Dr. Hawkins’s fee for the discovery 

deposition. Defendants contend that because plaintiff was the party that noticed Dr. Hawkins’s 

discovery deposition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E) mandates plaintiff pay Dr. Hawkins’s fee.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E), this Court finds that plaintiff must pay Dr. Hawkins’s 

fee for the March 7, 2022 discovery deposition. The Rule provides that “[u]nless manifest 

Case: 1:18-cv-00091-MWM-KLL Doc #: 120 Filed: 03/03/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 691
injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery: (i) pay the expert a 

reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) or (D).” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E). Plaintiff has not cited, and the Court has not found, legal authority 

supporting the proposition that excluding plaintiff’s counsel or representative from attending the 

IME and prohibiting the video recording of the IME constitutes manifest injustice under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(E) such that defendants should pay Dr. Hawkins’s fee. 

 Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s oral motion to require defendants to pay Dr. 

Hawkins’s fee for the March 7, 2022 discovery deposition is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: _____________ _____________________________ 

 Karen L. Litkovitz 

United States Magistrate Judge

3/3/2022

Case: 1:18-cv-00091-MWM-KLL Doc #: 120 Filed: 03/03/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 692