alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-10830 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. DENNIS ANTHONY KLINE, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-195-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney representing Dennis A n thony Kline in his appeal from the revocation of supervised release has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Kline has not filed a response. During th e p e n dency of this appeal, Kline completed his sentence of i m p risonment, and he has no further term of imprisonment or s u p e rvi s e d r e l e a s e to serve. The appeal is, t h e r e f o r e, moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 2 0, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-10830 Document: 00511701729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2011No. 10-10830

14 (1998); Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, a n d c ounsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.

2 Case: 10-10830 Document: 00511701729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2011
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20324 

Conference Calendar

 

RICHARD HUNTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF HOUSTON, REDMAN, Officer,

UNKNOWN OFFICER,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA H 96-291

- - - - - - - - - -

October 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Hunter, Florida prisoner #210660, appeals the

district court’s judgment dismissing his pro se, in forma

pauperis, civil rights action as time-barred. Hunter argues that

the action is not time-barred because he was not aware that his

property was being held as evidence in a criminal proceeding

until his sentencing on July 8, 1994, and that the limitations
No. 96-20324

- 2 -

** See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)

and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.

462 (1983).

period was tolled from the time of his arrest until his trial and

sentencing because he could take no action to recover the

property.

We do not address this argument because Hunter’s challenge

actually concerns the state forfeiture proceeding. The

Rooker-Feldman** doctrine precludes federal-court relitigation of

any claim that is "inextricably intertwined" with a state-court

judgment. Howell v. Supreme Court of Texas, 885 F.2d 308, 312

(5th Cir. 1989). Hunter may not circumvent this rule by casting

his complaint in the form of a civil rights action. Liedtke v.

State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

115 S. Ct. 271 (1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED on the ground that it lacked subject-matter

jurisdiction to consider Hunter’s claims. See Sojourner T v.

Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992) (court may affirm

judgment on any basis supported by the record), cert. denied, 507

U.S. 972 (1993).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                               Exhibit 10.40


October 31, 1996

Ms. Fanci Weisman
Williamson, Picket & Gross Inc.
116 John Street
New York, New York 10038

                                                 Re: Storage Space # 5 Lease
Dear Fanci:

     Please be advised that Arista wished to terminate its month-to-month 
lease for the small storage room area on the 13th floor. The termination is 
to be effective December 31, 1996.

     We have chosen this date so that you are provided with the sixty day 
advance notice called for in our agreement. Should the building have a use 
for this space prior to December 31st, please advise. We are prepared to 
vacate Storage Space #5, subject to a weeks notice.

     I wish to thank you for your assistance in our time of need.


                                       Very truly yours,

                                       /s/ Peter J. Norton

                                       Vice President
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 17-502C

(Filed: November 1, 2017)

************************************

*

THE FRONT LINE APPAREL *

GROUP, INC., d/b/a FRONT LINE *

APPAREL, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant, *

*

and *

*

DAK RESOURCES, INC., *

*

Defendant-Intervenor. *

*************************************

ORDER

Pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff, the Court hereby 

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the above captioned case. Each party shall bear its 

own costs in this protest. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Edward J. Damich 

EDWARD J. DAMICH

Senior Judge
Toivo VILBAS and Phyllis Vilbas, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., Appellee.

Nos. 3D17-2325 & 3D17-1528

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Remon SHIELDS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Cheryl PLILER; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-17066.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 14, 2004.

Remon Shields, Represa, CA, pro se.

*161Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Remon Shields, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by the California State Department of Corrections’ (“Department”) policy of housing in the general population prisoners who have been validated as members of “disruptive groups.” We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shields’ complaint because he failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the Department’s housing policy poses a substantial risk of serious harm. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT NOVEMBER 30, 1997, THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30,
1997 AND THE UNAUDITED NOTES THERETO FOR PLATINUM ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                             226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,407
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,312)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,854
<PP&E>                                           1,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (775)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,047
<BONDS>                                          5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,245
<SALES>                                         14,212
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,049
<CGS>                                            7,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,748<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,813<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,221)<F3>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,221)<F3>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,221)<F3>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)<F3>
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES $1,964 OF NON-RECURRING CHARGES
<F2>INCLUDES $363 OF NON-RECURRING CHARGES
<F3>INCLUDES $2,327 OF NON-RECURRING CHARGES
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Richard L. BELL, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2947

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 6, 2018

Richard L. Bell, Sr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Kelsey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 82 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 82

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. PRINTING OF REVISED VERSION OF ``BLACK AMERICANS IN 
              CONGRESS, 1870-1989''.

    (a) In General.--An updated version of House Document 101-117, 
entitled ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1989'' (as revised by the 
Library of Congress), shall be printed as a House document by the 
Director of the Government Publishing Office, with illustrations and 
suitable binding, under the direction of the Committee on House 
Administration of the House of Representatives.
    (b) Number of Copies.--In addition to the usual number, there shall 
be printed such number of copies of the document referred to in 
subsection (a) as does not exceed a total production and printing cost 
of $500,000, of which--
            (1) 80 percent shall be for the use of the Committee on 
        House Administration of the House of Representatives; and
            (2) 20 percent shall be for the use of the Committee on 
        Rules and Administration of the Senate.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 82

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of a revised and updated version of the House 
     document entitled ``Black Americans in Congress, 1870-1989''.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the Consolidated Balance Sheets and the Consolidated Statements of Operations 
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                        485,825
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                                 150,950
<ALLOWANCES>                                   48,828
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              631,242 
<PP&E>                                        980,889
<DEPRECIATION>                                212,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             16,663,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         747,853
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                        40
<COMMON>                                      201,812
<OTHER-SE>                                 15,713,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               16,663,220
<SALES>                                        54,100 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               61,977
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            2,497,528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            153,524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (2,589,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (2,589,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                              (2,589,075)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.14)
<FN>

Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line item on the Balance 
Sheet or Statement of Operations are reported as 0 herein.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY KHAMISI,

Petitioner,

vs.

WARDEN, OHIO REFORMATORY 

FOR WOMEN,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 Case No. 1:18-cv-550

 Judge Timothy S. Black

 Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY 

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 2) AND

TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT 

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on August 15, 2018, 

submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 2). Petitioner filed untimely objections 

on September 14, 2018. (Doc. 3).1

 1 Petitioner’s objections are not well-taken. Initially, the Objections—which were required to be filed 

by August 29, 2018, but were not filed until September 14, 2018—are untimely, and fail as a matter 

of law. See Jones v. Warden, Ross Corr. Inst., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169658, at * 4, 2013 WL 

6230365 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2013) (“failure to file timely objections not only waives the right to de 

novo review of a Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, but dispenses with the need for the 

district court to conduct any review.”). In any event, the objections fail on the merits.

Petitioner was sentenced on June 22, 2018 in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The 

Report and Recommendation notes that Petitioner currently has an appeal pending before the Ohio 

Court of Appeals and therefore the petition is subject to dismissal for lack of exhaustion. (Doc. 2 at 

3). Petitioner seems to contend that she has exhausted her state remedies, but provides no evidence 

in support of the notion. (Doc. 3 at 2–3). Petitioner’s argument is unavailing. The Court agrees with 

the Magistrate Judge that the petition is clear on its face that Petitioner has failed to exhaust state 

remedies.
2

 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 the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in 

its entirety. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1) The petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice, subject to refiling 

upon exhaustion of Petitioner’s state court remedies;

2) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

10/3/18
Case: 1:18-cv-00354-TSB Doc #: 14 Filed: 10/16/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 185
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APP EALS OF TEX AS

N O . W R
- 6 7 , 9 8 6
- 0 2

E X P A R T E D A V I D S H A W N J O H N S O N , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S

C A U S E N O . 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 D I N T H E 3 7 2 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T F R O M T A R R A N T C O U N T Y

N D

P E R C U R IA M . O R D E R
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal P ro ce d u re , the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte
Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a prohibited wea

pon and wa s sentence d to nine y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant contends that his se ntence is illeg al beca use there is a

n improper deadly wea

pon finding on the judgme nt. On November 17, 2015, the trial court signe d the State’s proposed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law rec ommending that relief be g rante d and the judgme nt be ref ormed. Applicant may be entitled to relief

. Ex parte Petty , 833 S.W .2d 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).Howeve r, habea s should not be used as a substitut e for other avenue s of relief

. See Ex Parte Nelson , 137 S.W .3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). I t appea rs from the rec ord that the deadly wea pon finding

was a cler ical err or. There is no indication of an y j u d i ci al rea soning that led to the finding being place d on the judgme nt. The indictment does not alleg e a deadly wea pon finding , nor does the plea barg ain ag ree ment ref

ere nce such a finding

. The trial co u rt can corr ect this err or by filing a judgme nt nunc pro tunc deleting the deadly wea pon finding

. Habe as relief should not be used as a substitut e for

such proc eeding s. Ba sed on this Court’s independent r eview of the entire rec ord, we deny relief

. Filed: De cembe r 16, 2015 Do not publish
EX PARTE Aaron Lamon SAFFOLD

CR-16-0188

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Montgomery Cir. Ct.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,214
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,147
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,807
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,602
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,305
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,297
<INCOME-TAX>                                       546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                751
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       751
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
kl10k123108x112_32809.htm


    Exhibit 10.12

     

    

     

     

     

    
      
         

      

      
        Exhibit
10.12 Page 1

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

       

      

       

       

      
        
           

        

        
          Exhibit
10.12 Page 2

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

         

        

         

        Exhibit 10.12 Page 2
U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

March 20, 2012 

Mr. Stanley L. Bernstein 

President 

RACCA - Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association 

60 Clifford Road 

Plymouth, MA 02360 

Re: Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

Docket FAA-2010-0100 

Dear Mr. Bernstein: 

Thank you for the letter you posted in Docket F AA-20 10-0100 about the above-referenced 

notice of proposed rulemaking. We appreciate your interest in this proposal and your 

initiative in taking part in the rulemaking process. 

In your letter you requested an extension of the 60-day comment period for an additional 60 

days due to the complexity of the proposal and the potential effects on aviation businesses 

and pilot supply. We have considered your request for extension. While we understand the 

reasons for your request we do not believe an extension is necessary. Therefore, your request 

is denied for the following reasons. 

In 2010, the FAA established the First Officer Qualification Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (ARC) as a result of comments it received from the advanced notice of proposed 

rulcmaking. The ARC provided an additional forum for the aviation industry to give 

extensive input on flight training and experience requirements for a first officer in part 121 

operations. The ARC members were also asked to consider the applicable requirements of 

the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of2010 in making 

their recommendations. The Act also mandated that by August 2, 2013, all pilots in part 121 

operations have an ATP certificate and that the FAA issue a final rule modifying the 

requirements for the issuance of an ATP certificate. To help ensure that we meet this 

deadline, the FAA must receive comments to its proposed rule by April30, 2012. However, 

as stated in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations § 11.45, we will consider comments filed 

late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
Thank you again for your participation in this rulemaking and we look forward to receiving 

your comments. W c will place this letter in the docket. 

Sincerely, 

~~~~ Pamela Hamilton-Powell 

Director, Office of Rulemaking