alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irvin Jefferson WILSON, a/k/a Irvin Jefferson Wilson, #158202, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. M. CUTLER, Police Officer, Greenville, South Carolina, Law Enforcement Department; Nicob Ball, Signature of Constable Law Enforcement Officer, State of South Carolina, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; B. W., Alleged Witness for the State; The Solicitor’s Office, Prosecutor Assigned to Plaintiff’s Charge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Greenville, South Carolina; Steward Sarratt, Defense Lawyer, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6617

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 25, 2017

Irvin Jefferson Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Logan McCombs Wells, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Irvin Jefferson Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice Wilson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction 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). Because it appears conceivable that some of the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Wilson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an ap-pealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Wilson to amend his complaint. *See Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. 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 AND REMANDED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon Emanuel ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6193

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, 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:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is 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.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Elliott’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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*
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ANDREW STYLER

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 20 22

- 333 4

[ November 30, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Robert Panse , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2022CT008735ASB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman,

Assi stant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J.

, F ORST and K UNTZ

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Albert DELON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0292

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 2018

Albert Delon, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
**~2/13/2012** 17:38 2023313933 KIRSTEIN&YOUNGPLLC



### U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION

FEDERALAVIATION ADMINISTRATION ) 

### In the Matter of: ) 

### FAADOCKET 2012-0469 )· 

### Aero Micronesia, Inc. ) FAA CASE NO 2011WP350005 

### dba Asia Pacific Aidines ) ) 

### Respondent ) ) 

### TO: CHIEF JUDGE RONNIE A. 

### YODER ;Respondent's Proposed Witness List The following is Respondent's Proposed Wi1n.ess List: PAGE 02/03

]I



### 1. FAA Inspector 

### Clarauce Kanea. 

### Mr Kanea

### has knowledge that

### Mr. Gazda was provided, and did have inhis possession, therelevant manual updates. 2. President ofAero Micronesia Mike Quinn. Mr. Quhm will establish that the 

### manual updates 

### were provided to 

### Mr. Gazda pursuant to established distribution procedures. 

### 3. Mr. Richard 

### Gazda. Mr. Gazda 

### will establish that he received the training 

### mm.J.ual updates from Aero Micronesia. Respectfully submitted,

# ayt~J\,~Z 

# . 1d ·stein**~** 

# C::/foi.R.spondent, Aero Micronesia, 

### Inc. Dated: December 13, 2012



### 112/13/2012 17:38 2023313933 In re Aero Micronesia FDMS No. FAA-2012-0469 FAA Case No. 2011WP350005 KIRSTEIN&YOUNGPLLC PAGE 03/03

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this date I haveplaced inthe United States mail, postage prepaid, the e:Kecuted original and faxed one copy ofthe Respondent's Witness List, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800IndependenceAvenue,SVV Washington, 

### DC 20591 

### Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building

- Suite 2Wl00 Facsimile: (202) 493-5142

I certify that on this date I haveplacedin the United States mail, postage prepaid, a tro.e copy ofthe Respondents Witness List, addressed as follows: DonBobe1tz. Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AWP-7 POBox 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

### Chief Administrative Law

### Judge U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofHearings, M-20 1200-NewJersey Ave., SE (£11-310) Washington, DC 20590 Dated: December 13,2012

avid ·stein 

### Kirs n & Young, PLLC 1750 K StreetNVV, Suite 200 Washington, 

### DC 20006 

### Counsel for Respondent, Aero Micronesia, Inc.
EXHIBIT 32.1 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,**

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

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2006 of Resources Connection, Inc. (the “Form 10-K”), I, Donald B. Murray, Chief Executive Officer of ResourcesConnection, Inc., 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 Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2. The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Resources Connection, Inc. 

 

August 8, 2006 

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Resources Connection, Inc. and will be retained by Resources Connection, Inc. 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 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any generalincorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended July 4, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: August 5,
2010





|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA                    
|                                         
|Ronald M. DiNella
Chief Financial Officer



30
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND THE STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          38,383
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,383
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,052
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,515
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,052
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (34,801)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,311)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)



</TABLE>
#### Mrs. D. E. MILTON and Marjorie Milton, Appellants, v. Jim LINE, Sheriff, Appellee.

No. 22932.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1966.

A. J. Robinson, Robinson & Fotheringham, Amarillo, Tex., for appellants.

Joe Harlan, Max R. Sherman, Gibson, Ochsner, Harlan, Kinney & Morris, Amarillo, Tex., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the record in connection with the judgment of dismissal of this action by the trial court for want of Federal Court jurisdiction.

The judgment was right. It is, therefore,

Affirmed.
Benson J. KINNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1489

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Anthony Shackleford, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 910]

*623Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenged a determination finding him guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule prohibiting the possession of a weapon. The charge stems from a search of petitioner’s cell which uncovered a dagger-type weapon hidden in the inside track of his cell door. Although petitioner argues, inter alia, that he did not have exclusive access to the area where the weapon was found, a reasonable inference of possession arises from the fact that the weapon was discovered in a location within petitioner’s control *(see Matter of Davis v Senkowski,*306 AD2d 778 [2003]; *Matter of Jackson v Selsky,*288 AD2d 802 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 612 [2002]; *Matter of Colon v Goord,*274 AD2d 732 [2000]). This inference, together with the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who authored the report, provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt (see *id.).*Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the weapon was too large to fit in the cell track and the penalty was harsh, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 14, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00866-CV

IN RE COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF ARLINGTON SUBSIDIARY, L.P. D/B/A MEDICAL CENTER ARLINGTON, Relator

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-06294-C



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers Opinion by Justice Bridges The Court has before it rela tor’s motion to dismiss this original proceeding. Relator states that the parties have re ached an agreement regarding the discovery dispute that is the subject of the petition for writ of mandamus. We grant the motion and dismiss this original mandamus proceeding. See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

150866F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.02
 STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF MOVE, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§ 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; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ ROBERT J. KROLIKRobert J. KrolikChief Financial Officer
Move, Inc.
Date: November 9, 2009  86
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,023,784
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,984,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,334,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,150,982
<PP&E>                                       9,469,728
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,372,743)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,487,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,227,352
<BONDS>                                      2,116,502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,698
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,794,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,487,024
<SALES>                                      6,075,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        5,087,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,170,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,893)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (185,676)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (79,790)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (105,886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (105,886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
|   | 1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or      78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August 6, 2010 |   | /s/ Jane M. Funk                           |   |
|----------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated          |   | Jane      M. Funk                          |   |
|           |   | Chief      Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |

----
#### Williams *&*Burghart v. Frick.

1. Practice: judgment on special verdict: error cured. Error, if any, in overruling a motion for judgment on a special verdict, notwithstanding the general verdict, is cured by afterwards sustaining a motion by the same party to set aside the general verdict and for a new trial.

*Appeal from Harrison Girouit Cottrt.*

Monday, March 14.

The facts are stated- in the opinion.

*L.*Brown, *for appellant.*

*F..M. Dance*and *Dewell <&*McGovern, for appellee.

Seevers, J.

There was a general and special verdict. They were inconsistent, and the defendant, in substance, moved the court to set aside the general .verdict, and render judgment in his favor on the special findings. This motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted. For the purposes of the case, it will be conceded that the court erred in so ruling. Afterwards the defendant moved the court to set aside the general verdict, and for a new trial. This motion was sustained. *363The error assigned and relied on is that the com t erred in overruling the first motion. Conceding this, we think the defendant waived the error by moving to set aside the general verdict, asking a new trial, and obtaining it.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Irving Schwartz, Respondent, against Bernie's Tire & Battery Service, Respondent, and Century Indemnity Company, Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Argued April 5, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*809
      *Irving A. Snyder*for appellant.

*Nathaniel L.*Goldstein, *Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*and *Orrin G. Judd*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

*Milton Solomon*and *Gilbert J. Fortgang*for claimant-respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Committee on Oversight hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.

# TIME AND DATE: 

Tuesday, February 22, 2022, from 3:00-4:00 p.m. EST.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS: 

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's opening remarks; approval of prior Committee minutes; discussion of requests for changes to Merit Review Digest; the Office of the Inspector General update; Chief Financial Officer update; report on pilots—Merit Review training and Broader Impacts expertise on Committees of Visitors.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Chris Blair,                         *cblair@nsf.gov,*                         703/292-7000. The meeting may be viewed live at                         *https://youtu.be/​U-oAd7QUUXI.*                         Meeting updates may be found at the National Science Board website at                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb.*

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2022-03626 Filed 2-15-22; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P