alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Denis RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Harold Clarke; David Robinson; G. K. Washington; Randall Mathena; Gregory Holloway; Scott Richeson; Malcolm Taylor; Keith Dawkins; Dr. Brane; Jim Parks; Henry Ponton; Earl Barksdale; George Hinkle; Elizabeth Thornton; J. Walrath; I. Hamilton; T. Puryear; J. Artrip; A. Gallihar; G. Baker; Michael Younce; Walter Swiney; Tori Raiford; Dwayne Turner; Stacy Day; Christopher Gilbert; Joe Fannin; Tony Adams; G. A. Adams; K. A. Sykes; R. Kegley; B. E. Stallard; Jackson; J. King, former counselor at Red Onion State Prison; A. B. Duncan, Unit Manager, Defendants-Appellees, and External Review Team; Dual Treatment Team; Unit Manager Team, Defendants.

No. 17-6293

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Denis Rivera, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Denis Rivera seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court entered its order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on December 8, 2016. Rivera filed his notice of appeal on March 1, 2017. However, prior to filing his notice of appeal, Rivera filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The district court received Rivera’s motion on January 9. In order for the Rule 59(e) motion to render Rivera’s notice of appeal timely filed as to the underlying judgment, the motion was due on January 5. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(v). Because Rivera is incarcerated, the motion is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). The record does not reveal when Rivera gave the Rule 59(e) motion to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the *241parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under *Houston v. Lack.*The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED*
STATE EX REL. Leonard PARKER, Jr. v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0324

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

*570Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Parker v. State, 15-2347 (La. 3/14/16), 186 So.3d 643.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6254 

AN ACT 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct a review on the Public Buildings Service, and 

for other purposes. 

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

•HR 6254 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Public Buildings Ac3 countability Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REPORT ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE. 

5 Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 

7 shall conduct a review of the Public Buildings Service and 

8 submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infra9 structure of the House of Representatives and the Com10 mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate 

11 a report containing the results of such review, including— 

12 (1) a review of the administration and manage13 ment of all Public Buildings Service real estate pro14 grams and activities, including— 

15 (A) a review and accounting of the number 

16 of employees and contract workers, including 

17 functions and the sources of funding (for exam18 ple building operations, reimbursable work, 

19 project-specific funding) categorized by region 

20 and organizational, management, and oversight 

21 structure within the Public Building Service, in22 cluding identification of components, programs, 

23 and reporting structures; 

24 (B) an accounting of in-person attendance 

25 by employee category and function; 
3 

•HR 6254 EH

1 (C) an analysis, trends, and comparisons 

2 of staffing numbers and associated costs and 

3 other administrative costs over the 10 years 

4 preceding the review; and 

5 (D) an analysis of the effectiveness of or6 ganizational structure, management, and over7 sight in carrying out the mission of the Public 

8 Buildings Service; and 

9 (2) a review of the building operations account 

10 of the Federal Buildings Fund established by section 

11 592 of title 40, United States Code, including activi12 ties and costs associated with conferences, training, 

13 and travel and transportation. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 11, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6254 

AN ACT 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United 

ings Service, and for other purposes. States to conduct a review on the Public Build-
August 21, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

UNITED RESIDENTIAL P ROPERTIES, L.P., WIL LIAM MAXWELL AND TIF FANY TALLENT , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 11

- 00330

- CV V.

TOM AND DWANA THEIS , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee s , Tom and Dwana Theis, signed March 18, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the evidence legally insufficient to support the trial court’s judgment

. We therefore order the judgment of the court below REVERSED and RENDER judgment that appellees, Tom and Dwana Theis, take nothing

. We order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellees , Tom and Dwana Theis

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Bruce Edward DUKES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2942

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### Alfredo Pintor IZQUIERDO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-71219

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 16, 2016 *

Filed November 21, 2016

Ian Silverberg, Law Offices of Ian Sil-verberg, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.

Brooke Maurer, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent,

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alfredo Pintor Izquierdo, 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 de*927nying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings and review de novo conclusions of law. *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

The agency determined that Pintor Izquierdo’s past harm rose to the level of persecution and that the government was unwilling to control his persecutors, but that he failed to show that he was harmed on account of his sexual orientation. The record compels the conclusion that one central reason Pintor Izquierdo was harmed was on account of his sexual orientation. *See Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “persecution may be caused by more than one central reason”). Pintor Izquierdo is entitled to a presumption that his life or freedom would be threatened if returned to Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to his withholding of removal claim and remand for the agency to address in the first instance whether the government has rebutted this presumption. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Further, in denying Pintor Izquierdo’s CAT claim, the agency found that Pintor Izquierdo failed to establish that he could not relocate. When the BIA and IJ issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decision in *Maldonado v. Lynch,*786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (applicants need not demonstrate that relocation would be impossible). Thus, we also grant the petition as to Pintor Izquierdo’s CAT claim, and remand for the agency to determine the impact, if any, of this decision. *See Ventura,*537 U.S. at 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRISTIAN CASTRO

- ALVARADO, AKA Omar Cosio

- Alvarado,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 71004

Agency No. A206

- 407

- 221

MEMORANDUM *

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

Submitted November 15, 2017 **

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Christian Castro

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

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

immigration judge’s d ecision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

* 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

NOV 22 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 71004

jurisdi ction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3 d 1182, 1184

- 85 (9th Cir.

2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substanti al evidence supports the agency’ s conclusion that Cas tro

- Alvarado

fai led to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground

. See

Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a

particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecu tion

was or will be on account of his membership in such group” (emphasis in

original)) ; see also Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An

[applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus,

his asylum and withholding of removal claim s fail

.

We do not address Castro

- Alvarado ’s contentions regarding the one

- year

asylum bar , credibility, the cognizability of his propo sed social group , and the

government’s willingness or ability to control his alleged persecutors beca use the

BIA did not deny relief on these grounds

. See Santiago

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 657

F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011).

Finally, s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Castro

Alvarado’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not

that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government3 16

- 71004

if returned to Mexico

. See Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.

2008). We reje ct his contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EX PARTE Kevin LANGLEY

(In re: Fawn Langley v. Kevin Langley )

2160616

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
<TABLE>
                               Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
                           Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share
                             (in thousands, except per share amounts)

 
            Primary Earnings Per Common Share
<CAPTION>

                                                                Quarter Ended
                                                               _______________ 
                                                                  April 5,
                                                               1996       1997
                                                             ________    ______

            <S>                                                 <C>        <C>
            Net income (loss) for the period                 $(1,355)    $2,958
                                                             ========    ======
            Weighted common shares outstanding                 3,962      6,891

            Dilutive effect of options
            outstanding during the period                        155        209
                                                             ________    ______

            Total common and common
            equivalent shares                                  4,177      7,100
                                                             ========    ======                                        
            Earnings (loss) per common share                  $(0.33)    $ 0.42
                                                             ========    ====== 
            Fully Diluted Earnings Per Common Share
                                                                Quarter Ended
                                                               _______________ 
                                                                  April 5,
                                                               1996       1997
                                                             ________    ______

            Net Income for the period                        $(1,355)    $2,958
                                                             ========    ======
            Weighted common shares
            outstanding                                        3,962      6,891

            Dilutive effect of options
            outstanding during the period                        168        209
                                                             ________    ______

            Total common and common
            equivalent shares                                  4,130      7,100
                                                             ========    ======

            Earnings per common share                        $ (0.33)    $ 0.42
                                                             ========    ======                                          E-1
</TABLE>
Trinita AUSTIN, Appellant, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, As Indenture Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1632

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

Trinita Austin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Christopher P. Hahn of Maurice Wutscher LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Ciklin, JJ., concur.
Brian Thomas OLIVER v. STATE

CR-16-0456

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 21.1





Subsidiaries of the Registrant


(as of July 3, 2011)














1-800-FLOWERS Service Support Center, Inc. (New York)


1-800-FLOWERS Team Services, Inc. (Delaware)


1-800-FLOWERS Retail, Inc. (Delaware)


1-800-FLOWERS.COM Franchise Co., Inc. (Delaware)


800-FLOWERS, Inc. (New York)


Conroy’s Inc. (California)


The Popcorn Factory, Inc. (Delaware)


Guarded Realty Holdings, LLC (Delaware)


BloomNet, Inc. (Delaware)


The Winetasting Network (California)


WTN Services, LLC (California)


Cheryl & Co. (Ohio)


Floranet Iberia S.L. (Spain)


Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc. (Delaware)


Fannie May Confections, Inc. (Delaware)


Harry London Candies, Inc. (Ohio)


Fresh Gift Cards, Inc. (Florida)


DesignPac Co., Inc. (Delaware)


DesignPac Gifts, LLC (Illinois)


Napco Marketing Corp. (Delaware)


Fannie May Franchise, LLC (Delaware)


1-800-Flowers Virginia, Inc. (Virginia)


WTN Marketing Agent, LLC (Delaware)


Celebrations, LLC (Delaware)


Fine Stationery, Inc. (Delaware)
EVERBANK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Earl DUNKLEY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1458

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Sep-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Sep-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-28-1997
<CASH>                                         3,040
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  86,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    82,782
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,079
<PP&E>                                         184,362
<DEPRECIATION>                                 64,436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 336,272  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          49,561
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       120
<OTHER-SE>                                     35,722 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   336,272  
<SALES>                                        375,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               375,470
<CGS>                                          332,766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  332,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,225 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                18,718
<INCOME-TAX>                                   7,212
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            11,506 
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   11,506
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .96
        


</TABLE>
Adrian JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3557

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 16, 2018

Adrian James, Wewahitchka, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*861Adrian James appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court's denial of relief as to all grounds except claim three. As to claim three, we remand for an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6240 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6240

To modify a certain commercial zone in Texas to include Zapata County, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 6, 2023

 Mr. Cuellar introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To modify a certain commercial zone in Texas to include Zapata County, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CAMERON, HIDALGO, STARR, AND WILLACY 
              COUNTIES, TEXAS COMMERCIAL ZONE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 13902(c)(4)(A) of title 
49, United States Code, Zapata County in Texas shall be considered part 
of the commercial zone comprised of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and 
Willacy Counties in Texas for purposes of transportation of property 
under section 13506(b) of such title.
    (b) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary of 
Transportation shall consult with Federal agencies that have 
responsibilities over traffic between the United States and Mexico.
    (c) Submission of Plan.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the State of Texas shall submit to the Secretary 
a plan describing how the State will monitor commercial motor vehicle 
traffic and enforce safety regulations.
    (d) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall affect any 
action commenced or pending before the Secretary or Surface 
Transportation Board before the date of enactment of this Act.
    (e) Commercial Zone Defined.--In this section, the term 
``commercial zone'' means the area that is comprised of Cameron, 
Hidalgo, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata Counties in Texas.
    (f) Effective Date.--Subsection (a) shall take effect on the date 
that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EX PARTE Jimmy Korea DAVIS

CR-16-0272

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. granted.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


    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 Chronimed Inc (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Henry F. Blissenbach,
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
to the best of my knowledge:


     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.

November 6, 2002

                                              /s/ HENRY F. BLISSENBACH
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Henry F. Blissenbach
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Chairman of the Board of Directors