alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Brandon James CLARK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6417

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: August 3, 2017

. Brandon James Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

*196Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brandon James Clark 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. 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 standardly 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, 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*
Freddie J. SMITH, Jr., DOC #H16866, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3455

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE EX REL. Terry KELLY v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0398

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
Glen Michael ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1309

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jimmy Earl HALL v. STATE

CR-16-0328

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: CAPITAL OPTIONS, LLC,

Debtor,

______________________

CAPITAL OPTIONS, LLC,

Appellant,

 v.

C. DENNIS LOOMIS; BAKER

HOSTETLER, LLP,

Appellees.

No. 16-60052

BAP No. 15-1165

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kurtz, Jury, and Jaime, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 17, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JAN 10 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
This is an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of claims by

Capital Options, LLC (Capital) against an attorney, C. Dennis Loomis, and his law

firm, Baker Hostetler LLP (collectively Loomis). Capital alleged that it had an

interest in another organization, G2, LLC (G2), and that Loomis was a trustee of

G2 funds and thus had a non-waivable fiduciary duty to Capital. The Bankruptcy

Court, having dismissed Capital’s underlying adversary proceeding in which it

asserted its interest in G2, dismissed Capital’s complaint against Loomis. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), and affirm.

A grant of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed

de novo. Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010); see

also In re Tracht Gut, LLC, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A motion to

dismiss in an adversary bankruptcy proceeding is governed by Federal Rule of

Bankruptcy Procedure 7012(b), which incorporates Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)-(i)”). However, underlying factual findings are reviewed for

clear error. In re Retz, 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2010).

In a contemporaneously filed memorandum disposition in In re Capital

Options, LLC, No. 15-60054, we affirm the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of

Capital’s related adversary proceeding. Accordingly, as Capital has failed to

demonstrate an interest in G2, it has failed to show that Loomis, as a trustee of the

2
G2 funds, has any fiduciary duty to it. The Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of

Capital’s claims against Loomis is AFFIRMED.

3
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus TROY LAMAR MORTON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CR-02-242; CA-05-470) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 23, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Lamar Morton, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Troy Lamar Morton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Morton’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain- 3 - authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Morton’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions. We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.15



MEMORANDUM


TO: LTIP Participant
FROM: Compensation Committee
DATE: March 9, 2018
RE: Long Term Incentive Plan


You have been selected to participate in the LKQ Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) for the 2018 to 2020 Performance Period. The potential payout under your award is subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in this memorandum and in the LTIP (a copy of which is attached to this memorandum). In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of the LTIP and this memorandum, the terms and conditions of the LTIP shall control.


Performance Period:    January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020
Award Components:    See the attached Award Component Matrix
Each of diluted earnings per share from continuing operations attributable to LKQ stockholders, organic parts and services revenue growth, and return on equity shall be increased to the extent that it was reduced in accordance with GAAP by objectively determinable amounts in each case due to:
		
	1.
	A change in accounting policy or GAAP;


		
	2.
	Dispositions of assets or businesses;


		
	3.
	Asset impairments; 


		
	4.
	Amounts incurred in connection with any ଁnancing; 


		
	5.
	Losses on interest rate swaps resulting from mark to market adjustments or discontinuing hedges;


		
	6.
	Board approved restructuring, acquisition or similar charges including but not limited to charges in conjunction with or in anticipation of an acquisition;


		
	7.
	Losses (and related fees and expenses) related to extra-ordinary environmental, legal, product liability or other contingencies; 


		
	8.
	Changes in tax laws or regulations or interpretations of such laws or regulations;


		
	9.
	A Board approved divestiture of a material business (i.e. the performance goals  will be adjusted to account for the divestiture, including, if appropriate, the pro-rata effect of targeted improvements);


		
	10.
	Changes in contingent consideration liabilities;


		
	11.
	The imposition of tariffs or taxes on the importation of inventory; and


		
	12.
	Other extraordinary, unusual or infrequently occurring items.




In addition, the diluted earnings per share shall exclude amortization expense related to acquired intangibles.


In addition, the Compensation Committee shall adjust the Award Components or other features of the award (a) that relate to the value or number of the shares of common stock of the Company to reଂect any stock dividend, stock split, recapitalization, combination or exchange of shares, or other similar changes in such stock, and (b) to account for changes 









in the value of foreign currencies of countries in which we operate versus the US. Dollar (using the 2017 average respective exchange rates).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, may reduce the actual award payable to you below that which otherwise would be payable pursuant to the Award Component or may eliminate the actual award.
mce of as along the between iualala 

## 5 NM 

## (orange



# area) **~**
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 24, 2014

h0616

Order 

Clerk

June 24, 2014

148973

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148973

COA: 312472

Oakland CC: 2012-241341-FC

DAJUAN ANTONIO BURKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 6, 2014 

judgment 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.
# Phantom 3 Purchased from DJI.com 

# Phantom 3 Specs.
Weight (Including Battery And Propellers) 1280 g Diagonal Size (Including Propellers) 590 mm Max Ascent Speed 5 m/s Max Descent Speed 3 m/s Hover Accuracy Vertical: +/
- 10cm Horizontal: +/
- 1m

Max Speed 16 m/s (ATTI mode, no wind) Max Altitude Above Sea Level 6000 m Operating Temperature 0°C to 40°C GPS Mode GPS/GLONASS



### Camera Sensor Sony EXMOR 1/2.3” Effective pixels: 12.4 M (total pixels: 12.76 M) Lens FOV 94° 20 mm (35 mm format equivalent) f/2.8, focus at ∞ ISO Range 100
- 3200 (v ideo) 100
- 1600 (photo) Shutter Speed 8s
- 1/8000s Image Max Size 4000 x 3000 Still Photography Modes Single Shot Burst Shooting: 3/5/7 shots Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB): 3/5 Bracketed Frames at 0.7EV Bias Time
- lapse

Video Recording Modes



### Phantom 3 Professio nal UHD: 4096x2160p 24/25, 3840x2160p 24/25/30 FHD: 1920x1080p 24/25/30/48/50/60 HD: 1280x720p 24/25/30/48/50/60



### Phantom 3 Advanced FHD: 1920x1080p 24/25/30/48/50/60 HD: 1280x720p 24/25/30/48/50/60

Supported SD Card Types Micro SD Max capacity: 64 GB. Class 10 or UHS
- 1 rating required Max Bitrate Of Video Storage 60 Mbps Supported File Formats FAT32/exFAT Photo: JPEG, DNG Video: MP4, MOV (MPEG
- 4 AVC/H.264)

Operating Temperature 0°C to 40°C



### Gimbal Controllable Range Pitch
- 90° to +30° Stabilization 3
- axis (pitch, roll, yaw)



### Vision Posi tioning Max Velocity Less than 8 m/s (when 2 m above ground) Altitude Range 30 cm
- 300 cm Operating Range 30 cm
- 300 cm Operating Environment Surface with clear pattern and adequate lighting ( Lux > 15)



### Remote Controller Operating Frequency 2.400 GHz
- 2.483 GHz Max Distance 2000m (outdoors and unobstructed) Video Output Port USB Operating Temperature0°C
- 40°C Battery 6000 mAh LiPo 2S Mobile Device Holder For tablet or phone Receiver Sensitivity (1%PER) 101 dBm ±2 dBm Transmitter Power (EIRP) FCC: 20 dBm CE: 16 dBm

Working Voltage 1.2 A @7.4 V



### Battery Charger Voltage 17.4 V Rated Power



### Phantom 3 Professio nal 100 W



### Phantom 3 Advanced 57 W



### Intelligent Flight Battery Capacity 4480 mAh Voltage 15.2 V Battery Type LiPo 4S Energy 68 Wh Net Weight 365 g Max Flight Time Approximately 23 minutes Operating Temperature

- 10°C to 40°C Max Charging Power 100 W



### App / Live View Mobile App DJI Pilot EIRP 100mW Live View Working Frequency 2.4GHz ISM Live View Qu ality 720P @ 30fps (depending on conditions and mobile device) Latency 220ms (depending on conditions and mobile device) Required Operating Systems iOS 8.0 or later Android 4.1.2 or later

Recommended Devices iOS: iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPad Air, iPad Air Wi
- Fi + Cellular, iPad mini 2, iPad mini 2 Wi
- Fi + Cellular, iPad Air 2, iPad Air 2 Wi
- Fi + Cellular, iPad mini 3, and iPad mini 3 Wi
- Fi + Cellular. This app is optimized for iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, and iPhone 6 Plus Android: Samsung S5, Note 3 , Sony Xperia Z3, Google Nexus 7 II, Google Nexus 9, Mi 3, Nubia Z7 mini *Support for additional Android devices av ai lable as testing and development continues
Robert GIAMETTA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-359

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Marvin L. PATTON and Lateefah Muhammad v. TUSKEGEE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

2160184

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 2, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Monte Lamar THOMAS

CR-16-0512

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Francie METAYER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2151

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
 
           REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) as of September 30,
1996, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three
month and six month periods then ended and the condensed consolidated statement
of cashflows for the six month period then ended.  These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended (not presented separately herein), and in our report dated April
24, 1996, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1996, is fairly stated in all
material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it
has been derived.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Tampa, Florida,
  October 11, 1996
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882974
<NAME> CHESTNUT REAL ESTATE PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      51,191,578
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,191,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,191,578
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,512
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  307,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (141,755)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (141,755)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### Corey HOLDER, Petitioner-Appellant v. M. SEPANEK, Warden, USP Big Sandy, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-30262 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 4, 2017

Corey Holder, Pro Se

Suzanne Morelock Williams, Assistant District Attorney, District Attorney’s Office for the 1st JDC—Parish of Caddo, Shreveport, LA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Corey Holder seeks a certificate of ap-pealability (COA) to appeal the district *217court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as corpus petition, challenging his 2007 Louisiana convictions for armed robbery with a firearm and resulting life sentences. He seeks to renew his claims that counsel was ineffective in failing to suppress the results of DNA testing because the search warrant was invalid and in failing to pursue his Batson1 claim further, and he argues that the district court erred in denying his postjudgment motion.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Federal habeas proceedings are civil in nature, and “the 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). Holder did not file a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his habeas petition. Instead, 30 days after the entry of judgment, he filed a motion for reconsideration, which motion must be treated as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. *See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc.,*784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Although Holder filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, it “does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” *Bailey v. Cain,*609 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir. 2010). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the district court’s underlying denial of habeas relief. *See id.*

Additionally, Holder’s Rule 60(b) motion challenged the district court’s merits resolution of his § 2254 petition. Consequently, it was an unauthorized successive § 2254 application. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 531-32, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider such a motion, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Holder’s Rule 60(b) motion on the merits. *See United States v. Key,*205 F.3d 773, 774-75 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The motions for COA and for leave to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *217published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)..
Clarence Leontay FRAZIER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3840

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
HARD-NOX PROPERTIES, Appellant, v. Sharon R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller, Palm Beach County, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1236

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 14, 2018]

Richard W. Glenn, Esq., Jupiter, for appellant.

Helene C. Hvizd and Rachel Fahey of the Palm Beach County Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach for appellee Palm Beach County.

Michael Vater of The Ticktin Law Group PA, Deerfield Beach, for appellee Sharon R. Bock.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Kuntz, JJ., and Fahnestock, Fabienne E., Associate Judge, concur.