alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CX REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, formerly known as CNA Reinsurance Company Limited, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brayon J. LOYAL, Defendant-Appellant, and Stewart J. Levitas, Defendant. CX Reinsurance Company Limited, formerly known as CNA Reinsurance Company Limited, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brayon J. Loyal, Defendant-Appellee, and Stewart J. Levitas, Defendant.

No. 16-2180, No. 16-2228

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 6, 2017

*131John Amato, IV, GOODMAN, MEAGHER & ENOCH, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Stuart M.G. Seraina, Louis P. Malick, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brayon J. Loyal appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of CX Reinsurance Company Ltd. (“CX Reinsurance”). CX Reinsurance cross-appeals from the same order by the district court denying its motion to dismiss the action.

With respect to Loyal’s appeal, we have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and, although we grant Loyal’s motion to file the additional materials submitted with her opening brief, we find no reversible error in the portion of the district court’s order granting summary judgment to CX Reinsurance. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment. *Loyal v. CX Reinsurance Co.,*No. 1:15-cv-02174-JKB (D. Md. Sept. 15, 2016). Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in CX Reinsurance’s favor, we dismiss as moot CX Reinsurance’s cross-appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss. 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.

No. 16-2180 *AFFIRMED*

No. 16-2228 *DISMISSED*
EX PARTE James Spinster CLOPTON, Jr.

CR-15-1488

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
18400 V ON K ARMAN A VENUE , S UITE 800 I RVINE , C ALIFORNIA 92612

- 0514 T ELEPHONE (949) 760

- 1121 / F AX (949) 720

- 0182

Direct Dial Number: (949) 224

- 6247 Direct Facsimile Number: (949) 224

- 6407 E

- Mail Address: pfraidenburgh@buchalter.com

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale December 18, 2014

VIA E

- MAIL (THUY.COOPER@FA A.GOV)

Ms. Thuy H. Cooper Senior Rulemaking Analyst Airspace and Airmen Rules Division Office of Rulemaking Federal Aviation Administration

Re: Picture Factory, Inc. Petition for Exemption (Docket FAA

- 2014

- 0794)

- Response to Request for Information and Modification to Request for Exemption from Pilot Certification Requirement

Dear Ms. Cooper :
Thank you for your correspondence dated December 4, 2014, in which you requested

a dditional information regarding the above

- referenced peti tion. I am writing to inform y ou that as of the date of this letter, the information y ou requested has been submitted as confident ial proprietary information to Mr. Jake Troutman. Please do not hesitate to contact me if any additional information is requested in connection with this petition

. I am also writing to formally notify your office that Petitioner wishes to modify its
p etition to reflect the FAA ’ s recently clarified policy of requi ring the Pilot in Command (PIC) to hold a private pilot ’ s certificate. In light of the FAA ’ s analysis of this issue in its recent grants of

e xempti on , P etitioner will no longer seek an exemption to the private pilot ’ s certification requirement. Instead, Petitioner will seek to operate its UAS for com mercial purposes using PIC s holding at least a private pilot ’ s certificate.

Best regards,

BUCHALTER NEMER A Professional Corporation

By

Paul J. Fraidenburgh Counsel for PetitionerDecember 18, 2014 Page 2

cc: Rob Pappas Lakisha Pearson Jake Troutman Jillian Nodland
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 1:57 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Creevy Jim; Cohen Dan; Carlos Siquieros; Brenda Edwards; Eduardo Robles; Daniel Young; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Brian Coffey; Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Gaytan Carlos; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Clark Silcox; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Fernstrom Gary; Coulte r Greg; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Raba Jim; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Mauer Joanna; Cymbalsky John; John Rossetti; Coughlin Katie; Winder Ken; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Waltner Meg; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michae l Rivest; Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski Raymond; Kumar Puesh; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Thomas Patzner; Robert van Buskirk; Roy Robin; Ryan Paul; Scott Beck; Si mmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Chad Kennedy; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo; Vijay Tendulkar Subject: MVLF and LV Groups

I'd like to reconsider my response to John Cymb alsky, at the end of the LV meeting, regarding showing the cost per kWh saved (based on the in cremental delivered transformer cost and the incremental energy savings, compared to dEL0). I believe John is correct and the cost per kWh

SHOULD be shown for each dEL/TSL/CSL for the li fe of the transformer. This is simply the ratio of the 30 year stream of annual kWh savings (discounted at 3% and 7%) to the incremental delivered transformer cost. Showing this in al l groups will provide a common comparison for all transformers as well as the a common reference for other energy savings programs in DOE's portfolios as well as the efficiency portfolios of the other participants.

I, of course, remain supportive of Tom Panzer's recommendation for a TSL basis, also discussed at that meeting.

Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal

Berman Economics

www.BermanEconomics.com

1915 Grand Court
Vienna, VA 22182

703

‐ 281

‐ 0490

703

‐ 655

‐ 8398 (cell)
BermanEconomics@gmail.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector Alexy GIRON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51064 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

*172Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Hector Alexy Giron, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Alexy Giron has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Giron has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
B.G. v. H.W.

2150912

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6158 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6158

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
authorize the acquisition and installation of gunshot detection systems 
         under the matching grant program for school security.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2023

  Mr. Meuser introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
authorize the acquisition and installation of gunshot detection systems 
         under the matching grant program for school security.

    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 ``21st Century School Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF GUNSHOT DETECTION SYSTEMS UNDER 
              THE MATCHING GRANT PROGRAM FOR SCHOOL SECURITY.

    Section 2701(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10551(b)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
            ``(9) Acquisition and installation of gunshot detection 
        systems.''.
                                 <all>
```
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-07-422-CR

NO. 2-07-423-CR

DORIAN MASAKELLA POTTER APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

In each case, Appellant Dorian Masakella Potter pled guilty to possession

of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount between four and two hundred

grams, with intent to deliver, and pled true to the repeat offender allegations.

The trial court found him guilty, found the repeat offender allegations true, and

sentenced him in each case to twenty years’ confinement in the Institutional

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, with the sentences to be
2... 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

3... See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);

Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no

pet.).

4... See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351

(1988).

2

served concurrently.

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to

withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel

avers that, in his professional opinion, these appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s

brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California2 by presenting

a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds for relief. Although Appellant was given an opportunity to file

a pro se brief, he has not done so.

After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw

on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of

Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record.3 Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

4

 Because

Appellant entered an open plea of guilty in each case, our independent review

for potential error is limited to potential jurisdictional defects, the voluntariness

of his pleas, error that is not independent of and supports the judgments of
5... See Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

6... See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005).

3

guilt, and error occurring after entry of the guilty pleas.5

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the records. We agree

with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find

nothing in the records that arguably might support the appeals.6 Accordingly,

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, LIVINGSTON, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 12, 2009
M.M. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160173

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
SHADOW RIDGE PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1540

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Denied.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Zlonor%bl% B. Faua%ttYora%, Speeker 

Eotme of Reprsseittatives 

Au~tln, Tazslr 

Bear Bear 81r: 

in whloh pna r 

18mled under t 

mmta8pro~ed 

and le$%l obli 

ot to sxeeed i1rte.n (16) year& 

e of refunding all tlw outstanddebtadmss of the G@wral l!'wd 

It 18 the opinion of this dePertment thati the bond8 

6otaght to be issued under authority of the propolrod sasabment would be valid and lag%2 obLlgetion8 of 8uoh OmRtjr, 
Honorable R. -Ott ldorse, IQne 14, 1939, page #I? 

but o&g to the oxtent that same are issued and exohsnaed 

for legal aad ralld outs~dlng WWrant indebtedness, ln 

suah mamier aslbnor provided by general law. The proposed amendment oeeks only to ahange the constltntlosal 

provlslons with rererenoe tc the levy or taxes lssofar as 

same arreots Red River County, and we do not think it la 

anywise alters the general laws sppertalnlng to the lsmanoe of fundlog or refusdlag bonds. Aooordlnglf, we are 

of the opinion that the flegallty of the wimrtmts sought to 

be runaed must be determined betore the Attornoy Qaaw82 

oould properly approve the bonds to be issued la liea o? 

and in erahangs for such b&standing warrant lnd8btsdness. 

The resolution, clearly, does not undertake to vaLidate 

all warrant indebtedness now outstanding agalsst the General 

l%M or Bed River County. 

Trustlng'that this satisfaotorily ass-8 $our questloa, we are 

Very truly yotirs 

ATTOIGIEY GENERAL OB'TUAS
CAUSE NO. 03-17-00708-CV

i^receivedN

DEC 0 5 2017

RON VALENTINE, SR.

Appellant

Vs.

IN THE THIRD DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS

JEREMY JAGODZINSKI and

CHRISTI GREENE

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO VACATE DECISION OF THE COURT

TO THE COURT:

Appellant motions to vacate the opinion of the court regarding indigence made on

11/15/2017. According to Rule 20.1 (j)(4) T.R.A.P, the Court was untimely in its

decision. The Court decided in excess of the 10 day requirement. By operation of law, the

appellant's motion must be granted.

Thank You,

Ron Valentine
Certificate of Conference

Valentine has attempted to confer with the party of interest but there was no reply.

Ron Valentine

Certificate of Service

Valentine delivers this document via hand delivery to Earl Vickery at 3007 Dancy St

Austin, TX 78722 on November 30,2017,2017

Ron Valentine
fecfeOffice.

Address:

Location:

Device ID:

6406 N I H 35

AUSTIN

TX 78752

MHRKR

Transaction: 900182506100

•FedEx Ground .9 23

788705747613 0.1 1bs. (S)

Declared Value 0

MailrYstrdayNews6xlO gg

040036567863 ^

Shipment subtotal: $9-23

Herctandtse

Tax(City): 2X $0.02

Total Due: $10.30

(R) CreditCard: $10.30

duplicate

M s yeiaht entered aanuBlly

S = Uewht read free scale

I : laxable Iten

leras and Conditions appiy. See fedex.coa/us/seroice-9uide for details.

Visit US at: fed^^

Or call 1.800.GoFedEx

1.800.463.3339

Rov 30, 2017 6:42:26 PM

«E LISTEN

Tell us how we're doing

s receive a disMunt on vour

fprtex.com/wel ist^ or 800-398 024^

' Redemption Code:

»»» Thartk you ***
-'r.-ryiV-./,;--

i

FROM: (512) 323-5045

Ronald Valentine

5508 AVENUE F

AUSTIN TX 70751

TM THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

209 W 14TH ST \

AUSTIN TX 78701

(512) 463-1733 REfs

IHU:

PO: DEPT;

SHIP DATE: QlD

ACTUGT: 0.10 LB

CAD: 6991761/SSF01822 2

DinnEO: 9 X 8 X 6 IN 2

7887 0574 7613

(USr

FedEx

Ground

■a. 1 V

m-.

rt

p

78701

9622 0019 0 (000 000 0000) 0 00 7887 0574 7613
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Annual Report of Cardtrend International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas CL Wong, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 17th day of February, 2009.

THOMAS CL WONGThomas CL WongChief Financial 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 with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Comapny and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





















---
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-11373

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR ALVARADO-MANCILLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CR-41-ALL-C

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

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cesar AlvaradoMancilla raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. §

1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.52
                                                                   -------------


January 27, 2004

Mr. Stephen J. Killeen 6 Kennedy Lane
Southborough, Massachusetts 01772

Dear Stephen:

I am pleased to confirm our interest in having you join the Switchboard, Inc.
Board of Directors and our Audit Committee. In consideration of your service we
provide the following compensation:

     * $25,000 annual retainer, paid quarterly
     * $3,000 committee member (non-chair) annual retainer, paid quarterly
     * A non-qualified stock option to purchase 40,000 shares of Switchboard,
       Inc. common stock granted, at an exercise price equal to the closing
       price, on the day of your appointment to the board. This option will vest
       over four (4) years at the rate of 10,000 shares every twelve (12)
       months.
     * A non-qualified stock option to purchase 15,000 shares of Switchboard,
       Inc. common stock granted, at an exercise price equal to the closing
       price, on the day of each annual meeting. This option vests 100% on the
       twelve (12) month anniversary.
     * A non-qualified stock option to purchase 20,000 shares of Switchboard,
       Inc. Common stock granted, at an exercise price equal to the closing
       price, on your four-year anniversary as a board member. This option will
       vest over four (4) years at the rate of 5,000 shares every 12 months.
     * Upon a change in control 100% of unvested stock options vest

Your appointment to the Switchboard Board of Directors is contingent upon board
approval, which I plan to address at or before our next board meeting which is
scheduled for January 28, 2004.

Stephen, I am excited about your joining the team at Switchboard. I am confident
that your extensive business experience will make you an extremely valuable
addition to our board and an immediate contributor to our board's
decision-making processes. We have some great opportunities ahead of us and I
believe that Switchboard represents an exciting and unique opportunity.

Please return a signed copy of this letter to me in the enclosed envelope to
confirm your acceptance of this offer, and/or call me at 508-898-1602 to discuss
any follow on questions.

Sincerely,

/s/Bill

William P. Ferry
Chairman of the Board                       Accepted: /s/Stephen J. Killeen
                                                      ---------------------
                                                      Stephen J. Killeen
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6179 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6179

 To exclude from consideration as income under the housing assistance 
  programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development amounts 
   received by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
 service-related disabilities of a member of the family, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 2, 2023

  Mr. Carbajal (for himself and Mr. Smucker) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exclude from consideration as income under the housing assistance 
  programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development amounts 
   received by a family from the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
 service-related disabilities of a member of the family, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Home for the Brave Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS FROM INCOME.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 15. EXCLUSION OF VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS FROM INCOME.

    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any amounts received 
by any member of a household or family as disability compensation under 
chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, or dependency and indemnity 
compensation under chapter 13 of such title, shall not be considered as 
income of such household or family for purposes of--
            ``(1) determining the eligibility of such family or 
        household for assistance under any program for housing 
        assistance administered by the Secretary;
            ``(2) the amount of benefits payable to or on behalf of 
        such family or household under such program; or
            ``(3) the amount of rent paid by such family or household 
        for occupancy of a dwelling unit assisted under any such 
        program.''.
                                 <all>
```