alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothy Lee ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6616

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

*262Dorothy Lee Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Dorothy Lee Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion seeking the benefit of Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court construed the pleading as either a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), or as a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012), and concluded that Anderson was not entitled to relief.

To the extent that Anderson seeks to appeal the denial of relief under § 2255, 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, 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 Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as to the denial of § 2255 relief,

To the extent that Anderson seeks to appeal the denial of relief under § 3582(c), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Anderson,*Nos. 3-cr-00837-JFA-1; 3:17-cv-00536-JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2017), 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART*
Joseph D. DANIELS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-659

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.6


PEOPLES BANCORP INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2018


SUMMARY OF PERQUISITES FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
OF PEOPLES BANCORP INC.


Peoples Bancorp Inc. ("Peoples") maintains an Executive Health Program, which provides an opportunity for each executive officer to participate, on a voluntary basis, in a comprehensive medical screening annually at the expense of Peoples.  The objective of the Executive Health Program is the early identification of potential health problems and the prompt, expert treatment of any medical problems detected, thereby mitigating the negative potential impact on Peoples' financial performance or current management succession plans.  Peoples offers a limited reimbursement for fitness club memberships, which is available to all employees, and is part of an overall wellness initiative at Peoples.  In 2018, named executive officers participated in a wellness incentive program, available to all Peoples medical plan participants, which provided up to a one-time $1,250 payment to a Health Savings or Flexible Spending Account, depending upon individual compliance with the program’s requirements, which include wellness related activities.
Based on business need, on a case-by-case basis, the Compensation Committee of Peoples' Board of Directors has granted the use of a company-paid automobile and/or country club membership to certain executive officers to further business development on behalf of Peoples and our shareholders.  Personal use of a company-paid automobile is reported as income to the executive officer.  Expenses relating to personal use of the country club amenities are either reimbursed to Peoples or paid by the named executive officer.
On a case-by-case basis, the Compensation Committee will approve the payment of or reimbursement to an executive officer for moving expenses and temporary housing as part of the executive officer's recruitment package.
Raymond WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-135

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 14, 2018]

Raymond Williams, Lake City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Taylor, May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
# Petition for Exemption under Section 333

Benjamin C. Davis
833 Rayston St.
Deltona, FL 32725

407

- 923

- 2365 

## Operation Objectives
Aerial photography, videography, inspections, surveying, real estate, agriculture, search and rescue.
Granting this exemption would fill a need in this community and help local business es in their everyday operations by creating a new and unique service. I would also like to volunteer my services to local government for search and rescue if they feel I could be of help.


## Unmann ed Aircraft to be used :
DJI Phantom 3 Professional and DJI Inspire 

## Safety

Safety w ill be rule number one including the operation of the UA and the surround ing area where the UA will be in service. Detailed pre

- flight checklist and inspe ction of all areas of the UA will be performed before each and every flight. Regular maintenance and repair (if needed) will be conducted after each and every flight to ensure a safe and successful operation. PIC will adhere to all safety requirements set forth by the FA A concerning the UA , surrounding area of the operation including persons and property, always oper ating the UA within a VLOS and flying below 400 feet with speeds below 20 knots. Strict adherence to all regulations will be followed

. If needed for a part icular operation, a visual outlook/guide will be present for safety and assistance. Insurance and Liability will also be purchased.


## Pilot in Command
I, Benjamin C. Davis will be the sole PIC. I hold a Private Pilot Certification issued on 3

- 7

- 1987 under certification number/SSN 240

- 39

- 3107. I have been a radio control enthusiast for 30+ years with hundreds of combined hours and experience in flying. I’m in excellent health and have a current Florida Driver’s License/ D120

- 063

- 68

- 260

- 0
Aircraft registration was submitted on 12

- 14

- 15 with proof of purchase and $5.00 fee.Thank you for you r consideration and I look forward to the exciting possibilities that unmanned aircraft

have to offer.
Benjamin C. Davis
#### Alvin SESSION, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, DIRECTOR, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6118

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Alvin Session, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Session seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Session has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. The motions for preparation of a transcript at government expense and for appointment of counsel are denied. 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*
David Paul WARREN v. STATE

CR-16-0344

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

Affirmed.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00355

- CR
Alejandro Duran Chavez v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No s

. CR

- 0991

- 19

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consi dered th ese cause s on appeal, concludes the appeals should be dismissed . The Court orders these appeals
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 25, 2022
Willie C. SCOTT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2979

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JEROME KAMILLE PARKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-94-66-7, CA-96-308-R)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Kamille Parks, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Parks, Nos. CR-94-66-7; CA-96-308-R (W.D.

Va. Dec. 12, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

January 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129927 & (23) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan _________________________________________ Robert P. Young, Jr. 

IN RE DARION MICHAEL JOHN-COBB, Minor. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERIVCES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 129927 

 COA: 264927 

WILLIAM A. JOHN, IV, 

 Respondent-Appellant, 

and 

 Wayne CC 

 Family Division: 04-436616-NA 

ELIZABETH COBB,

Respondent. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

stay is also considered, and it is DENIED. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would remand this case to the Court of Appeals as on 

leave granted. 

s0125 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 31, 2006 

Clerk
HIGH POINT CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., INC., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. HIGH POINT PLACE, L.P., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2287

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee FOR STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC., Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 2007-AR4, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR4, Appellant, v. Rafael LIY, Melany Sophia Liy, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Acting Solely as a Nominee for Pacific Mutual Funding, Inc. d/b/a Pacific Mutual Residential Financing a California corporation, Grand Palms Community Association, Inc., Encino Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., Julieta Bedoya, Alex L. Canas, Unknown Tenant #1 and Unknown Tenant #2, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2265

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40176

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JESUS LUCAS TRUJILLO-LUESA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(M-98-CR-180)

March 14, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Lucas Trujillo-Luesa appeals from his conviction of

various drug-trafficking offenses. Trujillo contends that the

district court denied him his right to confront a Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) agent who testified at his trial by quashing

his subpoena for the DEA field agents’ manual and by denying

counsel the opportunity to question the agent about the manual.

Neither the denial of Trujillo’s request to question the agent

about the manual nor the grant of the Government’s motion to quash

the subpoena was an abuse of discretion. United States v. Wilson,

732 F.2d 404, 412 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Hawkins, 661
2

F.2d 436, 444 (5th Cir. 1981). The field agents’ manual was

irrelevant to the agent’s testimony; "[t]here is no right to

impeach a witness with respect to collateral or irrelevant

matters." Hawkins, 661 F.2d at 444.

AFFIRMED.
Josue Ayala PEREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and Department of Corrections, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-163

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Eduardo SANTIAGO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-360

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 20, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Eric J. Eves, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before, EMAS, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**State v. Hinman*, 100 So.3d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) ; *State v. Sherrod*, 893 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ; *State v. Stone*, 889 So.2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** March 21, 2019 No. 04 - 18 - 00764 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00765 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00774 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00775 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00777 - CR,

04 - 18 - 00778 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00779 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00780 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00781 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00782 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00783 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00784 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00785 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00786 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00787 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00788 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00789 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00790 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00791 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00792 - CR, 04 - 18 - 00794 - CR, & 04 - 18 - 00795 - CR The STATE of Texas, Appellant v. Mark Anthony GONZALEZ , Agustin Perez, Jr., Gabriel Rene Perez, Jeremias Aguilar, Jr.,

Martin M. Rios, Jr., Steven Negrete, Fernando Jefte Mata, Eloy Canales Romo, Francisco Antonio Rodriguez, Raymond Ryan Robinson, Winston Robert Modisette, Courtney Marie Seilhammer, and Ahmed Mamuth Appellees From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 10041CR, 10056CR, 10122CR, 10134CR, 9711CR, 9712CR, 9892CR,

10123CR, 10054CR, 10138CR, 10187CR, 9964CR, 10185CR, 10047CR, 10074CR, 10115CR, 10116CR, 10117CR, 10118CR, 10125CR , 10195CR, 10196CR Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER The State’s Motions for Judicial Notice No. 4716, Judicial Notice 4845, Judicial Notice 4863, Judicial Notice 4866, and Judicial Notice 4866 (2) will be carried with appeal. It is so ORDERED on March 21, 2019 . PER CURIAM ATTESTED TO: _________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6001 

To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing services in Niger, 

Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad shall be entitled to tax benefits in the 

same manner as if such services were performed in a combat zone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 19, 2023 

Mr. PANETTA (for himself, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. KELLY of 

Mississippi, Mr. HUDSON, and Mr. CARBAJAL) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing 

services in Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad shall 

be entitled to tax benefits in the same manner as if 

such services were performed in a combat zone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS PER4 FORMING SERVICES IN NIGER, MALI, 

5 BURKINA FASO, AND CHAD. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the following pro7 visions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a qualified 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6001 IH

1 hazardous duty area shall be treated in the same manner 

2 as if it were a combat zone (as determined under section 

3 112 of such Code): 

4 (1) Section 2(a)(3) (relating to special rule 

5 where deceased spouse was in missing status). 

6 (2) Section 112 (relating to the exclusion of 

7 certain combat pay of members of the Armed 

8 Forces). 

9 (3) Section 692 (relating to income taxes of 

10 members of Armed Forces on death). 

11 (4) Section 2201 (relating to members of the 

12 Armed Forces dying in combat zone or by reason of 

13 combat-zone-incurred wounds, etc.). 

14 (5) Section 3401(a)(1) (defining wages relating 

15 to combat pay for members of the Armed Forces). 

16 (6) Section 4253(d) (relating to the taxation of 

17 phone service originating from a combat zone from 

18 members of the Armed Forces). 

19 (7) Section 6013(f)(1) (relating to joint return 

20 where individual is in missing status). 

21 (8) Section 7508 (relating to time for per22 forming certain acts postponed by reason of service 

23 in combat zone). 

24 (b) QUALIFIED HAZARDOUS DUTY AREA.—For pur25 poses of this section, the term ‘‘qualified hazardous duty 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6001 IH

1 area’’ means Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad, if as 

2 of the date of the enactment of this section any member 

3 of the Armed Forces of the United States is entitled to 

4 special pay under section 310 of title 37, United States 

5 Code (relating to special pay; duty subject to hostile fire 

6 or imminent danger), for services performed in such loca7 tion. Such term includes such location only during the pe8 riod such entitlement is in effect. 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions of this Act 

10 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1545 

To ensure that after a declaration of a major disaster affected States, local 

governments, and Indian tribal governments receive immediate approval 

for services and assistance provided under section 416 of the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2021 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS (for himself, Mr. TONKO, Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER, and Mr. 

TRONE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To ensure that after a declaration of a major disaster affected States, local governments, and Indian tribal governments receive immediate approval for services and 

assistance provided under section 416 of the Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 

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 ‘‘Crisis Counseling Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CRISIS COUNSELING ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING. 

6 After the President declares a major disaster under 

7 section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1545 IH

1 and Emergency Response Act (42 U.S.C. 5170b), any re2 quest made by a State, local, or Indian tribal government 

3 affected by such disaster shall receive immediate approval 

4 for services and assistance provided under section 416 of 

5 such Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Irene SMALL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3654

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 12, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weave r 137681 Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. In re TRE’VONN CALVIN BARNES Stephen J. Markman,
J ustices and AARON LASHAE’ GLASPIE, Minors.

________________ _________________________/

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 137681 COA: 284630 Wayne CC Family Division: SONYA M. BARNES, 07-473968-NA Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1209 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 12, 2008

Clerk