alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-1497 KARL V. DAVID, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-94-39-3) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Richard E. Gardiner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, G. Wingate Grant, Assistant United StatesAttorney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Karl V. David appeals the district court's order denying his motion for attorney's fees under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(d)(2)(B) (West Supp. 1998). A jury convicted David in 1994 of making a false statement to a department or agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (1994). We v acated David's conviction and remanded for a new trial in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (holding that element of materiality in § 1001 must be submitted to jury), which was decided while David's direct criminal appeal was pending. See United States v. David , 83 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 1996). On remand, the superseding indictment was reinstated, charging David with the§ 1001 violation and violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), 924(a)(1)(A) (1994). A jury acquitted David on all charges. David then filed his § 924(d)(2)(B) motion, contending that he was entitled to attorney's fees because his prosecution was "without foundation." The district court denied David's motion, holding that (1) the § 1001 violation did not fall within the purview of § 924(d)(2)(B); and (2) the remaining charges were not "without foundation" b ecause there was a valid indictment and because a finding of reasonabledoubt cannot be equated with a finding that a case was without foundation. We have carefully examined the record, the briefs, and the opinion of the district court. We agree with the district court that David failed to satisfy the requirements of § 924(d)(2)(B) and, therefore, affirm the denial of attorney's fees on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. David , No. CR-94-39-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

REJOICE KAI LARYEA,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendant.

ORDER

Case No.: 2:17-cv-1052

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH

Magistrate Judge Vascura

On November 5,2018, the United StatesMagistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice forfailure to

timely effect serviceof process pursuant to Rule4(m) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.

(See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 14). The partieswere specifically advised of their right

to objectto theReport and Recommendation and of the consequences of theirfailure to do so.

There has nevertheless been no objection to the Reportand Recommendation.

Accordingly, theReport and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

This action is hereby dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4(m) for failure to timely effectservice of process.

TheClerk shall remove Document 14 from the Court'spending motions list and close

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Georee C. Smith

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

MARIE DICOWDEN : CASE NO. 3:18cv148

Plaintiff,
, JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

#

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

Defendant.

SS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY
a o_o

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.

lho ew

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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  JCP&L  Transition  Funding  LLC
("Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Earl T.
Carey,  President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                           /s/Earl T. Carey
                                    ------------------------------
                                              Earl T. Carey
                                                President
                                       (Chief Executive Officer)
                                              May 9, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6162

ROBERT L. BROWN, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MR. JARED BAKER, Psychologist; NURSE LASTER; C. PHIPPS; DR.

MOISES E. QUINONES; KATHLEEN J. BASSETT, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00574-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: July 8, 2008 Decided: July 31, 2008

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Brown, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Brown, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (2000), for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1) (2000). Brown also appeals the court’s orders

denying his motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Baker,

No. 7:07-cv-00574-jlk-mfu (W.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2008; Jan. 18, 2008;

Feb. 7, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-286

Raynard Allen Miller, Jr. 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 17) that the

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

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

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: January 26, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); 

NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches, 

appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of 

prejudice. NRS 34.800(2). 

Appellant did not attempt to demonstrate good cause or 

overcome the presumption of prejudice to the State. To the extent that 

appellant sought to have his petition considered as a motion to correct an 

illegal sentence, appellant's claim for relief fell outside the narrow scope of 

claims permitted in a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See Edwards 

v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Therefore, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition as 

procedurally barred and barred by laches. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Pickering 

2ut02----s2-rr--TJ. 

Parraguirre 

Ciaafts J. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge 

Kevin Devon Sutton 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; CTSA Collaborative Innovation Awards Review Meeting.                    

*Date:*                         February 23, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         M. Lourdes Ponce, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0810,                         *lourdes.ponce@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 3565)    
Dated: January 18, 2022. 

David W. Freeman, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-01233 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

MICHELLE FOSTER, 

Plaintiff, Case No.: 3:18-cv-2

 

vs.

 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

(consent case)

Defendant.

ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)

(DOC. 17); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $4,600.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties’ joint 

stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $4,600.00. Doc. 17. Based 

upon the parties’ stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the 

reasonable award of EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation (doc. 17); 

and (2) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $4,600.00. As no further matters remain 

pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 6/13/19 s/ Michael J. Newman 

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate~ (!Court of §ppeaI~

for tge jfeberaI (!Circuit

ACTIVEVIDEO NETWORKS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON

SERVICES CORP., VERIZON VIRGINIA INC., AND

VERIZON SOUTH INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

2012-1479

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia in case no. 10-CV-0248, Judge

Raymond A. Jackson.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services

Corp., Verizon Virginia Inc., and Verizon South Inc.

(collectively "Verizon") respond to the court's August 29,2012 order and move unopposed to withdraw the

appeal.

Upon consideration thereof,

Case: 12-1479 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 10/01/2012
ACTlVEVIDEO NETWORKS v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS 2

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion to withdraw the appeal is granted.

Appeal 2012-1479 is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

OCT 01 2012

Date

cc: Michael J. Lyons, Esq.

Michael K. Kellogg, Esq.

s25

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

Issued As A Mandate: _O_C_T_O_1_2..:.....01.::;...2__

Case: 12-1479 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 10/01/2012
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6936

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
MUHAMMED MAHDEE ABDULLAH , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:04

- cr - 00371

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : January 20, 2023 Decided: May 16, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6936 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/16/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the court ’s order for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Malone , 57 F.4th 167 , 172 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023) . “ A
district court has abused its discretion when it acts arbitraril y or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” Id . (cleaned up). We
have reviewed the record and conclude that the di strict court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Abdullah was still a career offender. See United States v. Groves , __ F.4th __, __, 2023 WL 2941415, at *7 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[A] lthough the Guidelines exclude attempt offenses, § 841(a)(1) does not criminalize attempt [s] such that an § 841(a)(1) distribution offense would be categorically disqualified from being treated as a “controlled
substance offense.” )

. ∗ We therefore affirm the dis trict court ’ s order. 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

∗ This Court limits review to issues raised in the i nformal b rief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6936 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/16/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       4,549,707
<SECURITIES>                                 7,184,244
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,932,313
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    412,843
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,339,013
<PP&E>                                       3,707,099
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,344,329
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,743,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,660,881
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,156
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,993,633
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,743,018
<SALES>                                      1,315,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,966,805
<CGS>                                        1,636,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,417,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             473,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,915,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,915,573)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,915,573)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 2880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; 
NHLBI Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Study Section.
    Date: March 3-4, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Stephanie Johnson Webb, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge 
Drive, Room 208-V, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7992, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98ebecfde8f0f9f6f1fdb6effdfafad8f6f1f0b6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85f6f1e0f5ede4ebece0abf2e0e7e7c5ebecedabe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 12, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-00899 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

|  | (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                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| **/**s**/**John                A. Moore |
|-----------------------------------------|
| John                A. Moore            |
| Chief                Executive Officer  |
| May                20, 2008             |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Forms S-8 No. 33-30217, No. 33-39638, No. 33-77332 and No. 333-75515)
pertaining to the Incentive and Non-Incentive Stock Option Plans and Employee
Stock Purchase Plan of Frontier Insurance Group, Inc. of our report dated
April 7, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Frontier Insurance Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
April 13, 2000
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0004497 22-JAN-2015 08:49 AM