alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Raykisha MORRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS, Defendant-Appellee. *203Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Supporting Appellant.

No. 17-1505

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Decided: September 14, 2017

Raykisha Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Elizabeth E. Theran, Acting Assistant General Counsel, Paul D. Ram-shaw, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus supporting Appellant. Gregory Wenzl Brown, Kristi Lyn Gavalier, Eric Richard Martinson, BROWN LAW LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raykisha Morrison appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Morrison v. Resource Mgmt. Concepts,*No. 3:16-cv-00651-GCM, 2017 WL 1095067 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2017). We deny Morrison’s motions to appoint counsel, to supplement the record, and to seal. 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*
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 97-40659 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GUADALUPE BERLANGA-ESQUIVEL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-97-CR-95-1

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Guadalupe Berlanga-Esquivel argues that the indictment to which he pleaded guilty did not allege that he had been convicted previously of a felony, he pleaded guilty to simple reentry, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and therefore, the increase to his sentence based on his prior felony conviction is improper. In light of controlling authority, see United States v. Vasquez-Olvera , 999 F.2d 943, 945-46 (5th Cir. 1993), the conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED.
#### CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC, Appellant v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA Corp., Esko Software BVBA, Heidelberg, USA, Appellees

2016-1665

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 21, 2016

Samuel Flint Miller, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell *&*Berkowitz, PC, Nashville, TN, argued for appellant. Also represented by Wayne Edward Ramage, Maia T. Woodhouse; Joshua Tropper, Atlanta, GA.

Scott Anthony Mckeown, Obion, McClel-land, Maier <& Neustadt, LLP, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellees. Also represented by Christopher Ricciuti.

(Taranto, Linn, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### Elaine MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frederick J. HANNA and Associates, P.C., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-15417

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/16/2016

*767David Neal McDevitt, Thompson Consumer Law Group, Mesa, AZ, Marques J. Carter, Law Office of Marques J. Carter, LLC, Douglasville, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Michael Kevin Chapman, John Henry Bedard, Jr., David A. Kleber, Bedard Law Group, PC, Duluth, GA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The only issue in this appeal is whether the venue provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2), applies to garnishment proceedings under Georgia law. That issue is controlled by recent binding precedent. *See Ray v. McCullough Payne & Haan,*838 F.3d 1107 (11th Cir. 2016). The venue provision of the Act requires “[a]ny debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer” to “bring such action only in the judicial district ... in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; or in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.” 15 U.S.C. § 1629i(a)(2). We held in *Ray*that the provision does not apply to garnishment proceedings brought under Georgia law because those proceedings are “fundamentally an action against the garnishee, not the consumer.” *Ray,*at 1111. Frederick J. Hanna and Associates obtained a judgment against Elaine Marshall and then filed a garnishment action in Georgia against her employer. Because this garnishment proceeding was against the garnishee, Marshall’s employer, and not the consumer, Marshall, the venue provision of the Act does not apply.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANTHONY T. MORRISON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00080-RLW-2)

Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amy Leigh Austin, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony T. Morrison appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Lindsey , 556 F.3d 238, 244-46 (4th Cir. 2009); United

States v. Hood , 556 F.3d 226, 232-33 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. United States v. Morrison , No. 3:05-cr-00080-RLW-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2008). We deny Morrison’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6045 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study 

and submit a report on the efficacy of Federal drug surveillance systems, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Ms. CARAVEO (for herself and Mr. KEAN of New Jersey) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct a study and submit a report on the efficacy 

of Federal drug surveillance systems, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Curbing Illicit Drug 

5 Threats Act’’. 

2 

•HR 6045 IH

1 SEC. 2. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON EFFICACY OF FED2 ERAL DRUG SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS. 

3 (a) STUDY.—The Comptroller General of the United 

4 States shall conduct a study on— 

5 (1) the efficacy of Federal drug surveillance 

6 systems in providing up-to-date information on illicit 

7 drug use in the United States, including any limita8 tions affecting such efficacy; and 

9 (2) how such systems are used to address illicit 

10 drug use in the United States. 

11 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the 

12 date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 

13 of the United States shall complete the study under sub14 section (a) and submit to Congress a report containing— 

15 (1) the findings and conclusions of such study; 

16 and 

17 (2) any recommendations for legislative or ad18 ministrative actions to improve the efficacy of the 

19 Federal drug surveillance systems examined in such 

20 study, including any recommendations pertaining to 

21 interagency communication or data collection proce22 dures. 

23 (c) FEDERAL DRUG SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS DE24 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Federal drug surveil25 lance systems’’ includes— 

3 

•HR 6045 IH

1 (1) the Drug Overdose Surveillance and Epide2 miology System of the Centers for Disease Control 

3 and Prevention (commonly known as ‘‘DOSE’’); 

4 (2) the State Unintentional Drug Overdose Re5 porting System of the Centers for Disease Control 

6 and Prevention (commonly known as ‘‘SUDORS’’); 

7 (3) the National Drug Early Warning System 

8 of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (commonly 

9 known as ‘‘NDEWS’’); and 

10 (4) the Drug Abuse Warning Network of the 

11 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Ad12 ministration (commonly known as ‘‘DAWN’’). 

Æ
J.H., Mother of A.G. and A.M.H. children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-483 5D18-492

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Ca se number s : 01

- 1 2

- 001 0 6

- C R

01

- 1 2

- 00107

- CR

01

- 1 2

- 00108

- CR

Style: Miguel Maldonado , Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Type of motion: Motion for rehearing filed November 19, 2012

Part y filing motion: Appell ant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justice s Bland, Massengale, and Brown

.

Date: February 26, 2013

.
Wateka THOMASON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2086

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 20, 2018

Ryan Thomas Truskoski, of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 MARCH 29, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 10-14326 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:92-cr-00619-UU-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus

MARK A. MAYNE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 29, 2011)

Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. Mayne, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition

for a writ of audita querela, filed pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
After review, we affirm.

1

Mayne’s petition collaterally attacks his sentence in light of United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Because the relief Mayne

seeks—the vacatur of his original sentence on constitutional grounds—is

cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the district court correctly denied his petition

for a writ of audita querela. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1173-75

(11th Cir. 2005). 

Additionally, Mayne previously filed a § 2255 motion, which was denied,

and Mayne did not obtain authorization from this Court to file a second § 2255

motion. Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review Mayne’s pro se

petition as a second or successive § 2255 motion. See id. at 1175. Further, we

would not have authorized a second or successive § 2255 motion because the

constitutional rule announced in Booker does not apply retroactively on collateral

review. See In re Anderson, 396 F.3d 1336, 1339-40 (11th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.

“We review de novo the question of whether a prisoner may challenge his sentence by 1

filing a motion for a writ of audita querela.” United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th

Cir. 2005). 

2
Daniel JONES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-5119

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 01, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7793

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EMANUAL SHORTEN, a/k/a Terez, a/k/a T-Man,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00750-TLW-1; 3:17-cv01461-TLW)

Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emanual Shorten, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Emanual Shorten seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shorten has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1444 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 132 North Loudoun Street, Suite 1 in Winchester, Virginia, as the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1444 EH

1 SECTION 1. PATSY CLINE POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 132 North Loudoun Street, Suite 

4 1 in Winchester, Virginia, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post Of10 fice’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 

2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1444 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostCline Post Office’’. Suite 1 in Winchester, Virginia, as the ‘‘Patsy al Service located at 132 North Loudoun Street,
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000882194
<NAME>                        Matrix Pharmaceutical, Inc.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          9,435
<SECURITIES>                                   38,998
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               53,144
<PP&E>                                         21,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,539)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                126,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,674
<BONDS>                                        11,665
<COMMON>                                      222,327
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (115,361)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  126,305
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,167
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,501)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,501)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)
        


</TABLE>
#### Anthony PARKER, Appellant v. LEHIGH COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT

No. 17-1737

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 16, 2017

(Opinion filed: August 17, 2017)

Anthony Parker, Pro Se

Before: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

OPINION *

PER CURIAM

In February 2017, Anthony Parker filed a civil rights complaint in the District Court against the Domestic Relations section of the Family Division of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (“Family Court”). Parker claimed that the Family Court had violated his constitutional rights by dismissing his petition to modify his support order and seizing money from his bank account. Parker asked the District Court to order the Family Court to reopen the support proceedings so that he could lodge various objections. The District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because, among other reasons, Parker’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Parker appealed.1

We will affirm the District Court’s judgment. The District Court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to review, either directly or indirectly, the Family Court case. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284,125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars suits “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”).

*

**This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on February 17, 2022.

# PLACE:

1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC. (This meeting will be a virtual meeting).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.

Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Vicktoria J. Allen,

Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2022-02836 Filed 2-7-22; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES**

Alliente, Inc. 

Alliente Limited (UK) 

Ariba Argentina S.R.L. 

AribaAustralia Pty Ltd. 

Ariba Belgium N.V. 

Ariba (China) Limited(Hong Kong) 

Ariba Czech s.r.o. (Czech Republic) 

AribaDeutschland GmbH (Germany) 

Ariba France, SAS 

Ariba Holdings,Inc. (Cayman Islands) 

Ariba Iberia, S.L. (Spain) 

Ariba IndiaPvt. Ltd. 

Ariba International Inc. (Delaware) 

AribaInternational Singapore Pte. Ltd. 

Ariba Korea, Ltd. 

AribaLatin America, Inc. (Delaware) 

Ariba Singapore Pte. Ltd. 

Ariba Slovak Republic s.r.o. 

Ariba Switzerland GmbH 

Ariba Technologies India Private Limited 

Ariba Technologies Ireland Limited 

Ariba Technologies Netherlands B.V. 

Ariba UK Limited 

FreeMarkets GmbH (Germany) 

FreeMarkets GmbH (Switzerland) 

FreeMarkets International Holding Inc. de Mexico, de S. de R. L. de C. V. (Mexico) 

FreeMarkets International Holdings, Inc.(Delaware) 

FreeMarkets Investment Company, Inc. (Delaware) 

FreeMarkets, Ltd. (UK) 

FreeMarkets Ltda. (Brazil) 

FreeMarkets s.a./n.v. (Belgium) 

FreeMarkets S.r.L. (Italy) 

Goodex Iberia (Spain) 

Nihon Ariba KK (Japan) 

Softface, Inc. 

SupplierMarket.com, Inc. 

SurplusRecord, Inc. (Delaware) 

TradingDynamics, Inc. 

TradexTechnologies, Inc.
Rakim PHILON, DOC# T74235, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.