alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Scott DAVIS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6509

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*408 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of-appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court extended the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(5) to December 12, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed on *261April 4, 2017.* Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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*

*

 The notice of appeal is undated. For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the postmark date appearing on the envelope containing the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed,2d 245 (1988).
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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Biomedical Sensing, Measurement and Instrumentation Study Section, March 10-11, 2022, 9:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 08, 2022, 87 FR 7194, FR DOC #2022-02598.                

This meeting is being amended to change the Contact Person from Yuanna Cheng to James J. Li, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5148, MSC 7849, Bethesda, MD. The meeting dates, times, and meeting location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: February 8, 2022.

David W. Freeman, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03054 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
M.S., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4858

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 4, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Because M.S. has failed to file and serve an initial brief as provided by this court's orders of March 5, 2018, and April 11, 2018, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

CASANUEVA, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5

<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Fogelman Mortgage LP 1
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0000800608
<NAME>              Fogelman Mortgage LP 1
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1995

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1995

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1995

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          1,963,643

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   27,127,610

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0

<PP&E>                          692,557

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  29,783,810

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           364,416

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      29,419,394

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    29,783,810

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,270,198

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   340,542

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    1,929,656

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   31.04

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0


</TABLE>
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Francisco Julian LOZANO, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2756

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

Robert A. Herce of Herce & Herce, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
D.V., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2383

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Brandon JOHNSON

CR-16-0513

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Ct. of Civ. App.
Jerry Franklin MOSES v. STATE

CR-16-0248

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DONNELL D. JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2056

[March 2, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sara Alijewicz, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 502017CF003749AXXXWB.

Donnell D. Johnson, Milton, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alex PINEDA-MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4717

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

*189Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Mary E. Ma-guire, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alex Pineda-Mendez appeals the district court’s judgment imposing a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred when it sentenced Pineda-Mendez. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” *United States v. Webb,*738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks omitted). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” *United States v. Thompson,*595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010); *see*18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2012). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Pineda-Mendez’s sentence is reasonable.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal.* We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Pineda-Mendez, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Pineda-Mendez requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Pineda-Mendez. 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*

*

 We have reviewed the claims raised in Pineda-Mendez's pro se supplemental brief and con-elude they lack merit.
John Charles PEREZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1380

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 10, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed as from a nonfinal, nonappealable order.

VILLANTI, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
[Cite as Brown v. State , 2021-Ohio-4296.]

Terry Brown , Pro Se, #751-619, Belmont Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 540, St. Clairsville, Ohio 43950, Relator/Petitioner and
Atty. David Yost, Ohio Attorney General, Criminal J ustice Section, 150 East Gay Street, 16 th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215, and Atty. Vito Abruzzino , Columbiana County Prosecutor, 105 South Market Street, Lisbon, Ohio 44432, for Respondent ( No Response Filed )

. 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COLUMBIANA COUNTY

TERRY BROWN,
Relator/Petitioner,

v. STATE OF OHIO,
Respondent.

OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 21 CO 0022

W r it of Mandamus

BEFORE: David A. D’Apolito, Gene Donofrio, Carol Ann Robb, Jud g es.

JUDGMENT:

Dismissed.– 2 –

Case No. 21 CO 0022 Dated: November 18, 2021

PER CURIAM.
{¶1} Relator, Terry Brown, has petitioned the Court for a writ of ma ndamus to compel Respondent, Judge Scott A. Washam, to accept an affidavi t charging an assistant prosecuting attorney with perjury and conspiracy under R.C. 293 5.09. Because Relator’s petition does not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C . 2969.25, the Court
must dismiss this action. {¶2} R.C. 2969.25 sets forth specific filing requirements for inmate s who file a civil action against a government employee or entity. Responde nt is a government employee and Relator, incarcerated in the Belmont Correctional Institution, is a selfrepresented inmate. R.C. 2969.21(C) and (D). A case must be di smissed if the inmate fails to comply with the mandator y requirements of R.C. 2969.25 in the commencement
of the action. State ex rel. Graham v. Findlay Mun. Court, 106 Ohio St.3d 63, 2005-Ohio3671, 831 N.E.2d 435, ¶ 6 (“The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 ar e mandatory, and failure to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.”)

. {¶3} First, an inmate must “file with the court an affidavit that co ntains a description of each civil action or appeal of a civil action th at the inmate has filed in the previous five years in any state or federal court.” R.C. 2969.2 5(A). Relator’s petition
contains no such affidavit. {¶4} Second, Relator did not pay the cost deposit required by Loc.R. 2. He also failed to comply with R.C. 2969.25(C), which sets forth specifi c requirements for an inmate who seeks to proceed without paying the cost deposit. H e did not file an affidavit of waiver and an affidavit of indigency containing a statement of his prisoner trust account
that sets forth the balance in his inmate account for each of t he preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier, as required by R.C. 296 9.25(C). {¶5} Because Relator did not comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C. 2969.25, the case is dismissed. Costs taxed to Relator. {¶6} The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all partie s not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Civ.R. 58.– 3 –

Case No. 21 CO 0022 JUDGE DAVID A. D’APOLITO

JUDGE GENE DONOFRIO

JUDGE CAROL ANN ROBB
STATE EX REL. Lawrence PANSY, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0388

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON**

PER CURIAM:

*562Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated several applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 606 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 606

  To prohibit the use of Federal funds to study, propose, establish, 
implement, or enforce any mileage tax, including through the funding of 
                      a mileage tracking program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2023

   Mr. Issa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the use of Federal funds to study, propose, establish, 
implement, or enforce any mileage tax, including through the funding of 
                      a mileage tracking program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Track No Tax Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF 
              MILEAGE TAXES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
obligated or expended, directly or indirectly, to study, propose, 
establish, implement, or enforce any State, local, or Federal mileage 
tax, including through the funding of a mileage tracking program.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         124,749
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         104,049
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               156,971
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     74,190
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         231,161
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,763,975
<ALLOWANCE>                                     50,142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,403,496
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,826,507
<SHORT-TERM>                                    52,776
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             72,296
<LONG-TERM>                                    286,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        94,257
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,403,496
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 97,180
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               15,116
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,238
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               113,524
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              51,244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,661
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           45,873
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   87,175
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              12,931
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 58,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (61,297)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (36,795)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,093
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,702)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   11.19
<LOANS-NON>                                    101,097
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                31,841
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   70,830
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,317
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               50,142
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            50,142
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Asia Payment Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, King K. Ng, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 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 Company.

May 17, 2007

By: /s/ King K. Ng 
King K. Ng 
Chief Executive Officer 
(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
D.O.W. v. O.N.W.

2160064

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
James F. DEARMAN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2507

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 26, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for belated appeal is denied.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit
      32.2








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 Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
        David
        A. Heaberlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
        18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

















Date:
                November 9, 2006
            By:/s/
                David A. HeaberlinDavid
                A. HeaberlinChief
                Financial Officer
EX PARTE Anthony TROTTER

1160181 (CR-15-0934)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Cert. denied.