alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0138

_________________

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF

JACQUELINE STEINMANN,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 and

BRETT STEINMANN,

 Respondent and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Peter B. Ohman, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 25 2023

10/25/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0138
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.2


Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of W Holding Company, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge on the date
hereof:

         (a)      the Form 10-K of the Company for the Year Ended December 31,
                  2003, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
                  Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (b)      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
SEC or its staff upon request.

                                                 /s/ Freddy Maldonado
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Chief Financial Officer and
                                                Vice-President of Finance
                                                and Investment
                                                March 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statement of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the
Company's form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          43,339
<SECURITIES>                                 3,595,077
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,656,214
<PP&E>                                          88,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                (48,568)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,762,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,317
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           373
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,749,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,762,485
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (174,063)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (174,063)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (174,063)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Manuel MALDONADO-TOSCANO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40707 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

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

Jose Manuel Maldonado-Toscano, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Manuel Maldonado-Tos-*930cano 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). Maldonado-Toscano 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 *930published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of David McCullough, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 669]

Cardona, P.J.

Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Lebous, J.), entered February 4, 2003, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim as untimely.

Claimant seeks $300 in damages based upon his allegation that his typewriter was damaged by employees of the Department of Correctional Services. As claimant filed and served his claim for damages more than the 120 days after the record indicates that he exhausted his administrative remedies for personal property claims, his claim was untimely *(see*Court of Claims Act § 10 [9]). Hence, respondent’s motion for dismissal was appropriately granted. Claimant’s remaining arguments have not properly been preserved for appellate review.

Crew III, Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6226 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6226

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from 
 gross income for mandatory restitution or civil damages as recompense 
                      for trafficking in persons.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 2023

Mr. Schneider (for himself, Mr. Arrington, Ms. Sewell, and Mrs. Steel) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from 
 gross income for mandatory restitution or civil damages as recompense 
                      for trafficking in persons.

    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 ``Human Trafficking Survivor Tax 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION RESTITUTION AND CIVIL 
              DAMAGES AWARDED UNDER SECTIONS 1593 AND 1595 OF TITLE 18, 
              UNITED STATES CODE.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before section 
140 the following new section:

``SEC. 139J. CERTAIN AMOUNT RECEIVED AS RESTITUTION OR CIVIL DAMAGES AS 
              RECOMPENSE FOR TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS.

    ``Gross income shall not include any civil damages, restitution, or 
other monetary award (including compensatory or statutory damages and 
restitution imposed in a criminal matter) awarded--
            ``(1) pursuant to an order of restitution under section 
        1593 of title 18, United States Code, or
            ``(2) in an action under section 1595 of title 18, United 
        States Code.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by inserting before the item relating to section 140 the 
following new item:

``Sec. 139J. Certain amount received as restitution or civil damages as 
                            recompense for trafficking in persons.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7762

GERALD DAVIS FULLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PARRIS GLENDENING, Governor; BISHOP ROBINSON,

Secretary; RICHARD LANHAM, SR.; STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-3068-S)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Davis Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the

district court, with the modification that the dismissal be without

prejudice. Fuller v. Glendening, No. CA-95-3068-S (D. Md. Oct. 17,

1995). 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.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
#### Rufus Julius Cornelius ANDERSON, a/k/a Rufus Julius C. Anderson, a/k/a Rufus J. Anderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen PATTERSON; Miranda B. Pierce Ware; John Simmons; Patricia Fuller; E.F. Irick, Defendants-Appellees and Letitia Verdin; David Fisher; Alex Kinlaw, Defendants.

No. 16-2296

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Rufus J. C. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Holmes Burton, GIBBES & BURTON, LLC, Spartanburg, South Carolina; Barbara Murder Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert Patrick Coler, Assistant City Attorney, Logan McCombs Wells, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rufus Julius Cornelius Anderson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Anderson’s motion for an order of protection or restraining order, grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Anderson v. Patterson,*No. 6:16-cv-00761-MGL, 2016 WL 5424898 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2016). 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*
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[769 NYS2d 914]

Per Curiam.

Petitioner moves to suspend respondent attorneys on the ground that they have failed to file a registration statement and pay the required at*663torney registration fee in accordance with Judiciary Law § 468-a and part 118 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR part 118).

The moving papers indicate that despite written notices sent to them by the Office of Court Administration and a notice sent by petitioner, respondents have failed to register and pay the required fee. They have also failed to respond to the instant motion.

Judiciary Law § 468-a (5) provides that noncompliance with the statute and rules regarding attorney registration “shall constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be referred to the appropriate appellate division . . . for disciplinary action.” This Court has previously held that failure to comply with the registration requirements is professional misconduct warranting discipline *(see e.g. Matter of Arms,*251 AD2d 743; *Matter of Ryan,*238 AD2d 713; *Matter of Farley,*205 AD2d 874).

In view of respondents’ continued failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of the Judiciary Law and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts, petitioner’s motion is granted and the respondents listed on the schedule attached hereto are suspended, effective 30 days from the date of this order, until further order of this Court *(see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a,*291 AD2d 631).

Cardona, EJ, Mercure, Crew III, Feters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that the respondents listed on the schedule attached hereto are suspended, effective 30 days from the date of this order, until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondents, for the period of suspension, are commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, and are forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondents shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys.

> *664ATTORNEY YEAR OF ADMISSION

> Clark Robert Gilkes 1995

> Gellene Alfred V. 1980

> Goldberg Andrew M. 1994

> Griffiths Steven Harry 1997

> Iacopino Joseph J. 1982

> Muller Andrew Joseph 1997

> Oberst Gary Edmund 1991

> Sakofsky Charles Baer 1963

> Tarbell Eaton Weatherbee 1968
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11126

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cr-00305-VMC-AAS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHANE DANIELS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(June 28, 2019)

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-11126 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Stephen Langs, appointed counsel for Shane Daniels in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and 

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our 

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the 

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Daniels’s convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-11126 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6254 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6254

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 12, 2024

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
    review on the Public Buildings Service, 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 ``Public Buildings Accountability Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of the 
Public Buildings Service and submit to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report containing the 
results of such review, including--
            (1) a review of the administration and management of all 
        Public Buildings Service real estate programs and activities, 
        including--
                    (A) a review and accounting of the number of 
                employees and contract workers, including functions and 
                the sources of funding (for example building 
                operations, reimbursable work, project-specific 
                funding) categorized by region and organizational, 
                management, and oversight structure within the Public 
                Building Service, including identification of 
                components, programs, and reporting structures;
                    (B) an accounting of in-person attendance by 
                employee category and function;
                    (C) an analysis, trends, and comparisons of 
                staffing numbers and associated costs and other 
                administrative costs over the 10 years preceding the 
                review; and
                    (D) an analysis of the effectiveness of 
                organizational structure, management, and oversight in 
                carrying out the mission of the Public Buildings 
                Service; and
            (2) a review of the building operations account of the 
        Federal Buildings Fund established by section 592 of title 40, 
        United States Code, including activities and costs associated 
        with conferences, training, and travel and transportation.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 11, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Andre THOMAS, a/k/a Flak, a/k/a Flat, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7654

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Victor Andre Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Andre Thomas 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 Thomas 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*
#### UNION BUS LINES, INC., and Bobby Dee Wells, Appellants, v. Andres GALARZA, Individually and on Behalf of His Wife, Genoveva S. Galarza, Appellee.

No. 23518.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 29, 1966.

*403Erich F. Klein, Jr., Dallas, Tex., H. H. Rankin, Jr., McAllen, Tex., Rankin, Kern & Martinez, McAllen, Tex., Lyne, Klein & French, Dallas, Tex., for appellants.

Carl H. Judin, Jr., Judin & Cardenas, McAllen, Tex., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judgé, and JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This belated attempt by appellants to oust the jurisdiction of the Federal court by insisting that the appellee’s injured wife, a resident of the State of Texas, must be considered a party plaintiff, is based on too tenuous a reliance on the recent amendment to the Texas Married Womens Act, Art. 4618, Rev.Civil Stat.

The Judgment is affirmed.
A.W. v. MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160494

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.