alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. Francis DIPRETE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 950 FAIRVIEW STREET, LLC; Michael Stramiello; Michael Cosola, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2335

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 22, 2017

R. Francis DiPrete, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Tayloe Copeland, COPELAND & BIEGER, PC, Abingdon, Virginia; Robert Lucas Hobbs, ELLIOTT, LAWSON *&*MINOR, PC, Bristol, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

R. Francis DiPrete seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Michael Cosola, one of the three Defendants to DiPrete’s complaint; the action remains pending as to the other two Defendants. This court may exercise *224jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order DiPrete seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Porter v. Zook,*803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,773,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,814,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,350,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,970,486
<PP&E>                                       1,619,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                 279,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,746,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,776,881
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,706
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,746,701
<SALES>                                        249,015
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               249,015
<CGS>                                          437,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,925,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             263,364
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,939,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,939,610)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,939,610)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)


</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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11654]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Louise Bourgeois: Paintings” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, the New Orleans Museum of Art, New Orleans, Louisiana, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street, NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28,                           ( print page 9100)                        2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Stacy E. White,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-03418 Filed 2-16-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04087]


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

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

36 CFR Part 1155

[Docket No. ATBCB-2022-0003]
RIN 3014-AA46


Procedures for Issuing Guidance Documents; Rescission; Correction

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Direct final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(``Access Board,'' or ``Board'') published a direct final rule in the 
Federal Register on Feb. 2, 2022, rescinding its regulation that 
details internal procedures for issuance, public availability, 
modification, and withdrawal of agency guidance documents. The document 
contained the incorrect docket number.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 28, 2022, and is 
applicable beginning February 2, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Counsel Christopher Kuczynski, 
(202) 272-0042, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dbbcbeb5bea9bab7b8b4aeb5a8beb79bbab8b8bea8a8f6e7bafbb3a9bebde6" http: board.gov">board.gov</a>">generalcounsel@access-board.gov</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register on Feb. 2, 2022, 87 FR 5692, on page 5692, 
in the second column, correct the Docket No. caption to read: ``Docket 
No. ATBCB-2022-0003''.

Christopher Kuczynski,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-04087 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 23.1**
  Independent Auditors Consent
 
 The Board of Directors
 eCollege.com:
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-108501) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-34326) on Form S-8 of eCollege.com of our report dated March 12, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of eCollege.com as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), stockholders equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of eCollege.com. Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for employee stock-based compensation.
 
 
 
 /s/ KPMG LLP
 
 Denver, Colorado
 March 12, 2004
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00008-CV

Council Creek South Community Organization, Appellant

v.

Frank Grubbs and Richard Smith, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 30,514, HONORABLE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Council Creek South Community Organization filed a motion requesting

that its appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the

appeal.

_____________________________________

Diane Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: February 9, 2007
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

** **

The Board of DirectorseCollege.com:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (No. 333-108501) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-34326) onForm S-8 of eCollege.com of our report dated March 31, 2005, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of eCollege.com as ofDecember 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations and comprehensive income (loss), stockholders’ equity, and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004,which report appears in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K ofeCollege.com. Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting foremployee stock-based compensation in 2003.

 

 
|             | **/s/ KPMG LLP** |   |
|------------------|------------------|--------|
|             |
|             |
| Denver, Colorado |
| March 31, 2005   |

 

----
#### William Alfred JOHNSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23507.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 28, 1966.

William 0. Braecklein, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.

B. H. Timmins, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., Melvin M. Diggs, U. S. Atty., James F. Gaulding, Asst. Regional Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Dallas, Tex., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant seeks relief from a judgment of conviction and sentence for the possession and operation of an unregistered still used in the manufacture of *999spirits. He contends that the indictment did not state an offense and that evidence used in his prosecution had been obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. There is no merit in either contention. The judgment of conviction and sentence is

Affirmed.
#### David Alan SCHUM, Appellant v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee

No. 16-1376

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: July 7, 2017

Rehearing En Banc Denied September 28, 2017

David Alan Schum, Dallas, TX, pro se.

Pamela Louise Smith, Richard Kiser Welch, Jacob M. Lewis, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, for Appel-lee.

BEFORE: Tatel, Brown, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges ,

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal of an order of the Federal Communications Commission was considered on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and appellant’s motion to supplement the *517record on appeal, the corrected response thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion to supplement the record be granted with respect to the materials cited by the appellant to support his standing claim. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 292 F.3d 895, 899 (D.C. Cir. 2002); D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a)(7). The motion is otherwise denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal be dismissed for lack of standing. The appellant has not alleged facts demonstrating that the appel-lee has caused him an injury in fact that is redressable by the court, which are the “irreducible constitutional minimum” requirements for standing. Ranger Cellular v. FCC, 348 F.3d 1044, 1048-49 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997)). This court previously held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge a prior assignment of the two radio station licenses at issue, Schum v. FCC, 617 Fed. Appx. 5 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam), and he likewise lacks standing to challenge the subsequent assignments at issue here.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Quantitative Non-Use Tables.v2.xls

Author: Abt Associates Inc. Created: 1/31/11 Updated: 3/24/11 Purpose: Summary tables in support of the nonuse chapter and analysis

Worksheet Description

abun_increase tablesI&E reductions and estimated population size for species evaluated as part of the nonuse benefits transfer
WTP tables summary of results under regulatory options 1 through 3

File Info 1of 3

### Estimated Fish Population Increases in the Northeast from the Elimination of Baseline IM&E at CWIS

Species Baseline I&E Losses (millions of A1E) Estimated Fish Numbers (millions)a Winter Flounder 6.502 21.1 6,501,879.84 Striped Bass 1.399 14.3 1,398,700.91 Bluefish 0.001 116.1 667.78 Atlantic Butterfish 0.008 28.9 8,119.91

aEstimated population size was calculated by applying a conversion factor (lbs per fish) to an esitmate of spawning stock biomass.

abun_increase tables 2 of 3Nonuse Benefits from Increases in Fish Numbers under 316(b) Regulatory Options Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Reduction in Northeast IM&EM (millions of age-1 equivalents) 6.50 0.03 5.32 5.57 Maximum Population (millions of fish) 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 Percentage Increase in Fish within Northeast Waters 6.56% 0.03% 5.37% 5.63% Household WTP per Percent Increase in Fish Numbers (2009$) $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 Annual WTP per Household (2009$) $4.99 $0.02 $4.08 $4.28 Number of Households (millions) 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Annual WTP (millions of 2009$) $26.9 $0.1 $22.0$23.1 Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of 2009$) $26.3 $0.1 $14.8 $15.5 Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 2009$) $26.8 $0.1 $11.5 $12.0
Number of Households (millions) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Annual WTP (millions of 2009$) $104.6 $0.5 $85.6 $89.7 Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of 2009$) $102.3 $0.4 $57.3 $60.0 Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 2009$) $104.0 $0.4 $44.5 $46.5 North Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

Scenarios: Baseline = Elimination of Baseline I&E Mortality losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities with > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

WTP tables 3 of 3
#### Anthony C. KENNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT NATIONAL; Brookshire Foodmart; Brad Brookshires, Owner, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-11600

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 31, 2017

Anthony C, Kenney, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Anthony C. Kenney filed a notice of appeal after the magistrate judge recommended dismissing Kenney’s in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Our jurisdiction does not extend to the magistrate judge’s non-final decision. *See United States v. Cooper,*135 F.3d 960, 961-63 (5th Cir. 1998), Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED, and Kenney’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcus JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6253

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Marcus Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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.

*295We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson 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*
### Opinion issued November 9 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— 

### NO. 01 - 17 - 00 794 - CV

——————————— IN RE HAROLD GOLDBERG , Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION In this mandamu s proceeding, relator contends that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion for new trial
. 1 

### We lack jurisdiction over the associate judge. 2

1 The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of Jennifer Karpinsky

Goldberg v. Harold Goldberg , cause number 20 16

- 68107 , pending in the 3 08 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the H onorable David Sydow presiding.
2 See In re Clark , No. 01

- 15

- 00458

- CV, 201 5 WL 38 7 7787, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] June 23, 2015, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.)2



### We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX 

### . R. A PP 

### . P. 52.8 (a)
. PER CURIAM Panel cons ist of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Brown
.

(holding that court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over associa te judge)
. We note that the Texas Legislature has recently changed our mandamus jurisdiction to encompass associate judges. See Act of May 27, 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., ch
. 1013 , H.B. 1480 , § 1 (to be codified as an amendment to T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.22 1) . However, the change in the statute applies to suits filed after September 1, 2017
. Id . § 2 (“Section 22.221(b) . . . as amended by this Act, applies only to a suit . . . filed on or after the effective date of this Act.”)
. Because th e underlying sui t was filed prior to September 1, 2017 , we lack jurisdiction
.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Marc Galvan, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered December 18, 2018, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of petit larceny, and sentencing him to three years' probation.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Laurie Peterson, J.), rendered December 18, 2018, affirmed.</p><p>We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe, and find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (<i>see People v Fair</i>, 33 AD3d 558 [2006], <i>lv denied</i> 8 NY3d 945 [2007]). Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his bargained for plea and should not now "be heard to complain that he received what he bargained for" (<i>id. </i>at 558, quoting<i> People v Chambers</i>, 123 AD2d 270 [1986]).</p><p>All concur.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br><br>Clerk of the Court<br>Decision Date: May 13, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>