alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Randal MAUDERER Plaintiff-Appellant v. IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, et al. Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3866

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 23, 2017

Filed: March 28, 2017

Randal Mauderer, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Randal Mauderer appeals after the district court1 dismissed his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he alleged that his recommended participation in a Sex Offender Treatment Program violated his constitutional rights; and that the conditions of his exercise privileges while in segregation violated both his constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We conclude that the action was properly dismissed for the reasons stated by *573the district court. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (§ 1915A(b) dismissal is reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny the appellate motions.

1

. The Honorable Rebecca Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### Mary Jane SUGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M&T BANK, Defendant-Appellee, and Mortgage Amenities Corporation; Government National Mortgage Association, as Trustee for Securitized Trust Ginnie Mae Remic Trust 2001-10; Ginnie Mae, Defendants.

No. 17-1218

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Mary Jane Suggs, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Miltz Luck, III, REED SMITH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

• Mary Jane Suggs appeals the district court’s order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss her civil action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Suggs v. M&T Bank,*230 F.Supp.3d 458 (E.D. Va. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Lee BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6428

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Kenneth Lee Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*256PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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, 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 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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*
PALM BEACH POLO, INC. and Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., Appellants, v. FAR NIENTE STABLES, LLC, Far Niente Stables, II, LLC, Far Niente Stables III, LLC, Far Niente Stables IV, LLC, Far Niente Stables V, LLC, Polo Field One, LLC, and Wellington Equestrian Partners, LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2966

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

Larry A. Zink of Zink, Zink & Zink Co., L.P.A., Hillsboro Beach, for appellants.

Daniel S. Rosenbaum and Misti Z. Barnett of Rosenbaum PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Klingensmith and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          57,550
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          54,682
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                72,206
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     75,804
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,537,613
<ALLOWANCE>                                     31,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,004,617
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,406,570
<SHORT-TERM>                                    31,220
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             58,888
<LONG-TERM>                                    289,883
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           30,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,453
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,004,617
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 89,705
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,063
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,545
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               105,313
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              42,608
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,694
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           45,619
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   24,455
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,265
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 60,660
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (33,156)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (19,139)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,139)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.53)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     65,054
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,079
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                24,881
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   19,149
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,160
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               31,347
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            31,347
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal of Audit and Financial Management Advisory Committee.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act and its implementing regulations, SBA is issuing this notice to announce the renewal of its Audit and Financial Management Advisory Committee. This advisory committee is being renewed to provide advice and recommendations to SBA on government accounting and performance issues impacting the agency.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Questions about the Audit and Financial Management Advisory Committee may be directed to Andrienne Johnson, Office of the Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416;                         *Andrienne.Johnson@sba.gov;*                         202-205-6605.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pursuant to its authority in section 8(b)(13) of the Small Business Act, (15 U.S.C. 637), SBA is renewing the Audit and Financial Management Advisory Committee. This discretionary committee is being renewed in accordance with the provision of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.)

The AFMAC is tasked with providing recommendations and advice regarding the Agency's financial management, including the financial reporting process, systems of internal controls, audit process and process for monitoring compliance with relevant law and regulations.

Dated: February 3, 2022.

Andrienne Johnson,

SBA Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-02627 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Matthew C. Flemming                      |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| Matthew                C. Flemming, Chief Financial Officer |
| June                5, 2008                                 |

----
#### In the Matter of De Foe Construction Corp., Petitioner, *v.*Abraham D. Beame, as Comptroller of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, New York County,

April 23, 1973.

*McDonough, Schneider, Marcus & Cohn (Richard Marcus*of counsel), for petitioner. *Norman Redlich, Corporation Counsel (Morgan N. Lipton*and *Michael R. Pearl*of counsel), for respondents.

Edwabd J. Ubeehfield, J.

This is an application to compel respondent Highway Commissioner to issue a proper voucher *310and thereafter to compel the City Comptroller to issue a warrant for amounts owed to the petitioner pursuant to a contract to repair an underpass which was amended to include authorized extra work.

The contract included a set unit price for “Neat Cement Grout” at 50 cents per pound. Upon commencement of the work it was found that the method originally planned would not he appropriate or feasible and so the respondents authorized extra work for the change. Included in this extra work was the need for 131,412 pounds of “Neat Cement Grout” instead of the original estimate of 10,000 pounds. It is the respondent Highway Commissioner’s contention that, in its discretion and pursuant to article 26 of the contract, the payment for this extra work .should be at 50 cents per pound for the first 20,000 pounds and 23 cents per pound for the remainder of 111,412 pounds.

Pursuant to article 26 of the contract, ‘ ‘ Extra work for which there are applicable contract unit prices will be paid for at such unit prices. Where there are no applicable contract unit prices, subject to audit and revision by the Comptroller ” the amount shall be computed by a specified formula. Since there was a set contract unit price for the cement grout and since there was no agreed change of that amount, the petitioner is entitled to be paid for the 131,412 pounds at 50 cents per pound.

Respondents have an obligation, as public officials and agencies of the city government, to act legally and to faithfully perform every contract (Administrative Code of City of New York, § 343-1.0). Therefore, any action, as is involved herein, which is clearly contrary to the contract and illegal, is reviewable as being arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the petition is granted and the respondents are directed to issue the necessary documents providing for payment. Settle judgment.
#### IN RE: Douglas Leigh FAUCONIER, Petitioner.

No. 17-1473

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 2, 2017

Decided: September 1, 2017

Douglas Leigh Fauconier, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Leigh Fauconier petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his civil action. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has recently granted Fauconier’s application to proceed in for-ma pauperis and ordered the Defendants to file a response to his complaint. Accordingly, because the district court has recently acted in Fauconier’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7838
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD ROBINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-12, CA-99-130-5) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 18, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Gerald Nazzaro, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Edward Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 2003 WL 431659 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662), at *10; 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We also deny Robinson’s motion to hold the case in abeyance. 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
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of 3CI Complete ComplianceCorporation (the “Company”) for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), I,Otley L. Smith III, thePresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:   August 16, 2004 | /s/ Otley L. Smith III                 |   |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                              | Otley  L. Smith III                    |
|                              | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02776]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy's Subcommittee 
on Technology, Innovation and Partnerships hereby gives notice of the 
scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science 
Board business pursuant to the NSF Act and the Government in the 
Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: Friday, February 11, 2022, from 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. 
EST.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda is: Subcommittee Chair's Opening 
Remarks; Approval of Minutes from November 22, 2021, Meeting; Update on 
Regional Innovation Engines and TIP Programmatic Plans Beyond the 
Regional Innovation Engines.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e6d6c626f677c4e607d6820696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ea8988868b8398aa84998cc48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. Meeting information and 
updates may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-02776 Filed 2-7-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Katherine B. LONG v. Louis B. LONG

2160172

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Elsa D. WHITLOCK, as next friend of, and ON BEHALF OF H.F., Appellant, v. Lynne LISKA, as guardian of the property of H.F.,

In re: Guardianship (of the property) of H.F. and S.F., Minors, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2716

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018

James P. Waczewski of Waczewski Law Group, and Matletha N. Fuller, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Mary L. Wakeman of Heuler-Wakeman Law Group, P.L., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bryant William GOSS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40278 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

*912Marisa J. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bryant William Goss, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bryant William Goss 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). Goss 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.
Order entered May 6, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00409-CV

TIM REED, Appellant

V.

ADAMS GOLF, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-00494-2013

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s April 25, 2013 sealed emergency motion for stay of 

temporary injunction pending appeal. The Court requests that appellee file any response to the 

motion by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 10, 2013.

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
14910-I3-P] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal AviatioD Administration 14CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2009-0714; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-041-AD) RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directivesj Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ, -l35ER, -l35KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145EP, 145ER, -145MP, -145MR, -145XR, and 145LR AiIplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening ofcomm 01 tm1M· 7 period. SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM fortheproducts listed above. This act revises the earlier NPRM byexpanding the scope. This proposed ADresults from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to,identify and correct anunsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: Itwas reported that after commanding thelanding gear lever to down the three green landing gearpositioning indication was displayed followed by tbe LGILEVER DISAGREE EICAS [engine indicating andcrew alerting system] message. The crew decided to continue the approach and landing procedure. As soon as the crew identified thatthe landing gear was not extended properly, ago-around procedure was successfully perfomled. During maneuver, the airplane settled momentarily onto the Oaps and belly. In'I~"~YM"QL



# • • • 

# • • • * '"
Antonio L. BUCKMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-3639

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.