alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dwight ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2589

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### James E. WHITNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant, Sergeant Morse; Whittington, Sergeant; Nurse Rhonda Bradley; Corporal Foster; Corporal Mulvaney; Deputy Workman; Sheriff Tim Helder; Detective Y. Schrock; Aramark Correctional Services, LLC; Deputy Shepherd; Deputy Weissrock, revised from Deputy Weiss Brock per Order dated 8/11/2015; Deputy McNelly, revised from Deputy McNally per Order dated 8/11/2015, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2760

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 6, 2017

Filed: October 11, 2017

James E. Whitney, Pro Se

JaNan A. Davis, Jason E. Owens, Rainwater *&*Holt, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Sergeant Morse, Whit-tington, Sergeant, Nurse Rhonda Bradley, Corporal Foster, Corporal Mulvaney, Deputy Workman, Sheriff Tim Helder, Detective Y. Schrock, Deputy Shepherd, Deputy Weissrock, Deputy McNelly

Alexander Cale Block, Barber Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Aramark Correctional Services, LLC

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, James Whitney claimed that defendants committed various constitutional violations in their treatment of him while he was confined as a pretrial detainee at the Washington County Detention Center in Arkansas. The district court1 granted defendants summary judgment, and Whitney appeals. We conclude that although Whitney had a constitutional right to nutritionally adequate food, he received three acceptable meals per day on all but about seven occasions, and his *320weight loss over the course of a few months was a small part of his documented three-year weight loss on a diabetic, gluten-free diet. The evidence thus did not support a finding that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his nutritional needs. *See Ingrassia v. Schafer,*825 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir. 2016). Because Whitney did not establish that defendants otherwise violated his constitutional rights, we affirm for the reasons given in the magistrate judge’s report, adopted by district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B. Whitney’s motion for default judgment is denied.

1

. The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Erin Wiedemann, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda Patrice MOTON, a/k/a Yolanda Johnson, a/k/a Yo-Yo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6228

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 10, 2017

Decided: August 15, 2017

Yolanda Patrice Moton, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney,. Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yolanda Patrice Moton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief in part on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moton 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*
Mickey ELLISON v. STATE

CR-16-0427

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Christopher A. MORRISSEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-1391

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 22, 2018

Christopher Morrissey, Raiford, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General Tallahassee, and, Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the October 23, 2017 judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2016-CF-007999-A, in the Circuit Court in and for Orange County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6133 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from finalizing, 

implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule, entitled ‘‘Safe and Appropriate Foster Care Placement Requirements for Titles IV–E and IV– 

B’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2023 

Mr. BRECHEEN (for himself, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. 

MOORE of Alabama, Mr. BURLISON, and Mr. GOSAR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed 

rule, entitled ‘‘Safe and Appropriate Foster Care Placement Requirements for Titles IV–E and IV–B’’. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Religious 

5 Freedom for Foster Families Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6133 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON RULEMAKING. 

2 The Secretary of Health and Human Services may 

3 not finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule, enti4 tled ‘‘Safe and Appropriate Foster Care Placement Re5 quirements for Titles IV–E and IV–B’’ (88 Fed. Reg. 

6 66752; published September 28, 2023), or any substan7 tially similar rule. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.1
ACCIDENT PREVENTION PLUS, INC.
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Alan Schwartz, President and
Chief Executive Officer ("principal executive officer") of Accident Prevention
Plus, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based
upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"):
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)[15(d)] of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Dated: March 18, 2004              by: /s/ Alan Schwartz
                                   ------------------------------
                                    Alan Schwartz,
                                    President & CEO
#### Jose BRAVO-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73119

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*593Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Jose Ivan Vargas, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Ivan Vargas, Panorama City, CA, for Petitioner

Surell Brady, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Bravo-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s determination of continuous physical presence. *Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Bravo-Martinez did not establish the required continuous physical presence and was therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal, where the Form I-826, Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition, indicates he accepted voluntary departure in 2011. *See Ibarra-Flores,*439 F.3d at 618 (voluntary departure interrupts physical presence).

The agency did not violate due process in considering the Form 1-826, where the form was probative to the issue of Bravo-Martinez's continuous physical presence, and where he had the opportunity to raise objections regarding the form before the IJ. *See Sanchez v. Holder,*704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[t]he sole test for admission of evidence is whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair”„ (citation omitted)); *Lata v. I.N.S.,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must show error and prejudice).

Bravo-Martinez’s contention that the Form 1-826 did not properly put him on notice that he was interrupting continuous physical presence by accepting voluntary departure is unpersuasive. *See Valadez-Munoz v. Holder,*623 F.3d 1304, 1311 (9th Cir. 2010) (after accepting voluntary departure, alien can have no legitimate expectation that he could illegally reenter and resume a period of continuous physical presence).

Bravo-Martinez’s contention that the BIA misapplied *Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales*is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03055]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
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: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; High impact, 
Interdisciplinary Science in NIDDK Research Areas (RC2 Clinical 
Trial Optional): Celiac Disease.
    Date: March 25, 2022.
    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIDDK-Democracy 2, DEM 2, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, 
MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Maria E. Davila-Bloom, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7017, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-7637, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e0a0f1807020f430c02010103032e0b161a1c0f4000070a0a054000070640090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcd8ddcad5d0dd91ded0d3d3d1d1fcd9c4c8cedd92d2d5d8d8d792d2d5d492dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 8, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03055 Filed 2-11-22; 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>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02742]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the 
agreements to the Secretary by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4f7c1c7d6c1d0c5d6dde4c2c9c78ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c2f191f0e19081d0e053c1a111f521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, 
Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC 
20573. Comments will be most helpful to the Commission if received 
within 12 days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, 
and the Commission requests that comments be submitted within 7 days on 
agreements that request expedited review. Copies of agreements are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed999f8c89888c838c81949e849ead8b808ec38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="790d0b181d1c18171815000a100a391f141a571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 201349-002.
    Agreement Name: World Shipping Council Agreement.
    Parties: COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co., Ltd., Orient Overseas Container 
Line Ltd., and OOCL (Europe) Limited (acting as a single party); CMA 
CGM S.A., APL Co. Pte. Ltd., American President Lines, LLC and ANL 
Singapore Pte. Ltd. (acting as a single party); Crowley Caribbean 
Services, LLC and Crowley Latin America Services, LLC (acting as a 
single party); Evergreen Marine Corporation (Taiwan) Ltd.; Hapag-Lloyd 
AG; HMM Company Limited; Independent Container Line, Ltd.; Kawasaki 
Kisen Kaisha Ltd.; Maersk A/S and Hamburg Sud (acting as a single 
party); MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines 
Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Ocean Network Express Pte. Ltd.; Wallenius 
Wilhelmsen Ocean AS; Wan Hai Lines Ltd. and Wan Hai Lines (Singapore) 
Pte. Ltd. (acting as a single party); Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.; 
Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd.; Matson Navigation Company, 
Inc.; and Swire Shipping Pte. Ltd.
    Filing Party: Robert Magovern; Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The amendment adds Swire Shipping Pte. Ltd. as a party to 
the Agreement.
    Proposed Effective Date: 3/19/2022.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/34503.

    Dated: February 4, 2022.
William Cody,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02742 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# **Exhibit 31.2**

## ** **

## **Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I,Michael H. Carrel, certify that:

 

1.   Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zamba Corporation;

 

2.   Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.   Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | November 12, 2003                               |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                                |   |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODOLFO GUZMAN

- MARTINEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72450

Agency No. A073

- 856

- 793

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 19, 2019 **

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Rodolfo Guzman

- Martinez , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigrati on Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

§ 1252. We consider questions of law de novo, a nd we review factual findings for

substantial evidence. Guan v. Barr , 925 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2019). We

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Guzman

- Martinez failed to establish that i t is more likely than not that he would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to

Mexico. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F .3d 140, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009) ; Delgado

- Ortiz v.

Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (gener alized evidence of violence and

crime in Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish

eligibility for CAT relief)

. In determining whether Guzman

- Martinez met his

burden of proof, the agency properly considered the lack of evid ence of any past

torture. See Mairena v. Barr , 917 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2019) (evidence of

past torture is relevant in assessing whether torture is more likely than not).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.