alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jonathan Spear *versus*Simeon Alden and Others.

By the late statutes, a prisoner for debt, having given bond for the liberty of the yard, commits no escape by being, in the night-time, in the public streets within the exterior limits of the prison-yard.

Debt on a bond dated the 7th day of May, 1813, conditioned that the said *Alden,*who had been on that day committed to prison *401on an execution in favor of the plaintiff, should continue a true prisoner within the limits of the jail-yard, without committing any manner of escape.

It was agreed by the parties that, after the execution of the said bond, the said *Alden*did, at sundry times before he was legally discharged from prison, go out of the apartments occupied by him, in the night-time, and was in the public streets, and in houses other than those apartments, and within the exterior limits of the jail-yard; but he was in no instance known to be without the said exterior limits.

If, upon these facts, the Court should be of opinion that *Alden ■*had committed an escape, within the true intent and meaning of the laws on this subject, then judgment was to be rendered for the plaintiff for such sum as he was by law entitled to recover; otherwise he was to become nonsuit.

*Richardson*for the plaintiff.

*Whiting*for the defendants.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Parker, C. J.

The late acts of the legislature regulating prisons within this commonwealth (1) have reduced the imprisonment for debt, from that *salvo et arcta custodia*required by the common law, to a mere nominal confinement of the person of the debtor. With the policy or impolicy of this system we have nothing to do.

The act passed June 27, 1811, is clear and explicit with regard to the effect of a bond given pursuant to it. If the prisoner confines himself within the exterior limits of the yard, as established by the Courts of Sessions, he is at liberty * to go [ *445 J where and when he will, within those limits, either by day or by night. The bond sued in the present action was executed after the passing of that act; and although its condition varies from what is thereby intended to be the condition of bonds for the liberty of the prison-yard, yet the variance is immaterial, and the debtor was entitled to all the indulgences allowed by that act. It being agreed that he at no time passed without the exterior limits of the prison-yard, there is no breach of the condition, and the plaintiff must be nonsuit.

*Plaintiff nonsuit.*

(1)

*Stat.*1809, c. 33.—1810, c. 116—1811, c. 69, 85, 167.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Aaron DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50263 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

David Aaron Diaz, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent David Aaron Diaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Diaz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs 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.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Bales Construction Co. Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62305

)

Under Contract No. W911S7

- 14

- D

- 0020 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Stephen M. Sorett , Esq.

Joseph L. Fuller

, Esq.

Kutak Rock LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

MAJ Susan Kim, JA

Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: July 8 , 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62305

, Appeal of Bales Construction

Co. Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 9, 2020 JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge TAMEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40469 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. AN torney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jorge Tamez, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Tamez has moved for *924leave 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). Tamez 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 *924published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>

                          PREMIER AUTO TRUST 1999-2
       FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 1999 (INCEPTION) THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1999
                           FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                   PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X
                                  $ Millions
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          $         4
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,422
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    26
<BONDS>                               1,400
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,426
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00


</TABLE>
#### Jerome M. MERAZ Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tony RODGERS; Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Mike Shelite; Dustin McDaniels Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-1744

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 16, 2016

Filed: December 21, 2016

Jerome M. Meraz, Pro Se

Kathryn Henry, Assistant Attorney General, ATtorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees Wendy Kelley and Dustin McDaniels

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jerome Meraz—-who pleaded guilty in Arkansas in 2008 to stalking, kidnapping, residential burglary, and misdemeanor theft—appeals from the judgment of the District Court1 denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred.

Following de novo review, we agree with the District Court that the petition is time-barred. Even if we were to assume that the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) was tolled during the pendency of Meraz’s collateral challenges to his criminal conviction in state court, his federal petition was still untimely filed with no grounds for equitable tolling. See Camacho v. Hobbs, 774 F.3d 931, 934-35 (8th Cir.) (discussing the dismissal of a § 2254 petition as time-barred following an Arkansas plea proceeding), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 81, 193 L.Ed.2d 34 (2015); Burns v. Prudden, 588 F.3d 1148, 1150 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for equitable tolling).

We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We also grant counsel’s request to withdraw, and we deny as moot Meraz’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
Anthony ROSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-726

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of CytRx Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that:(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: March 31, 2007 /s/ STEVEN A. KRIEGSMAN   Steven A. Kriegsman   Chief Executive Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to CytRx Corporation and will be retained by CytRxCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anExhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6862

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT ELTON STOTTS, a/k/a Sugarbear,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-95-49)

Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 11, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Elton Stotts, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Elton Stotts seeks to appeal the district court’s order

construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a motion filed under

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), and dismissing it for failing

to obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255

motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Stotts, No. CR-95-49

(E.D. Va. filed May 17, 2000; entered May 18, 2000); see Fed. R.

Civ. P. 58, 79(a). 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
Jeffery NIX v. Christie NIX

2160260

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,184,165
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,762,653
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               732,877
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    777,809
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       2,737,599
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         2,766,567
<LOANS>                                     98,141,140
<ALLOWANCE>                                    630,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             112,253,295
<DEPOSITS>                                  68,825,077
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,600,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,553,231
<LONG-TERM>                                  6,600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,610,883
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,064,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             112,253,295
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,034,242
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              186,720
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               221,401
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,442,363
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,674,890
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,926,084
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,516,279
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   60,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,290,242
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,235,542
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,235,542
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   763,975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.72
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                    30,683
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               570,417
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              630,417
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        630,417
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

                            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 Annual Report of SBS Interactive, Co. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Todd
Gotlieb, President and Principal Accounting 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 and 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/Todd Gotlieb
                               ------------------------------------------------
                               By: Todd Gotlieb
                               President and Principal Accounting Officer
                               April 15, 2005
Exhibit
      32.1











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 Capital Corp of the West (the "Company")
        on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas T. Hawker,
        President and 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:





(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.














Date:
                August 9, 2007
            By:/s/
                Thomas T. HawkerThomas
                T. HawkerPresident
                andChief
                Executive Officer
Catherine Baber WHITEHURST v. STATE

CR-16-0145

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Victor PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1163

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FILED
AS PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QULAIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,721
<SECURITIES>                                     5,982
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (630)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,264
<PP&E>                                           3,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,976)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,982
<BONDS>                                             43
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,020
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,298
<SALES>                                          7,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,189
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  32
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,676)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,676)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.75)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edwin Antonio PORTILLO-BERNABEL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41562 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 22, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for flain-tiff-Appellee

Edwin Antonio Portillo-Bernabel, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edwin Antonio Portillo-Ber-nabel 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). Portillo-Bernabel 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 nonfrivo-lous 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.