alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2105

WALTER E. CHILDRESS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, formerly

known as Appalachian Power Company; STEPHEN

LEWIS JAMISON; FAY AMOS; AETNA INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(CA-99-34-6)

Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: February 25, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter E. Childress, Appellant Pro Se. William Beverly Poff, Frank

Kenneth Friedman, Thomas Meredith Winn, III, WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter E. Childress appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims against the Defendants on the basis of res

judicata and moves to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. See Childress v. American Electric Power Co., No. CA-99-34-

6 (W.D. Va. July 14, 1999). 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
#### William G. Solomon, Appellant, *v.*Brooklyn Cornell Utilities, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Argued June 14, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*595
      *Paul O’Dwyer*for appellant.

*James J. McLoughlin*and *Thomas P. Harrigan*for Estate of Josiah T. Smith, Inc., respondent.

*Francis X. McHugh*for Brooklyn Cornell Utilities, Inc., respondent.

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Charles NGETHE, AKA Charles Muchaf, AKA Charles Ngethe Muchai, AKA Charles M. Ngethe, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70454

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 18, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed October 20, 2017

Michael Cumming, Associate, Megan R. Whisler, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner

OIL, Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Charles Ngethe petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order dismissing his appeal of the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) by an Immigration Judge (IJ). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

The BIA’s determination that Ngethe failed to establish that he is “more likely than not to be tortured,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a), if he returns to Kenya is supported by substantial evidence. While the evidence indicates that “[violence against LGBT persons [i]s a problem” (and in some cases, the police were involved in the violence), police-have intervened to stop attacks in other cases and there is evidence that the situation of LGBT persons in Kenya is improving. Because the evidence in the record is inconclusive, it does not compel the conclusion that Ngethe faces an individualized risk of being tortured in Kenya if returned. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009).

*677We reject Ngethe’s argument that the IJ erred by failing to review the 2014 State Department Report. There is no indication that the 2014 Report contained “highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence” not included elsewhere in the record, particularly in the 2013 State Department Report, to which the IJ made specific reference. *Cole v. Holder,*659 F.3d 762, 772 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor did the IJ err by failing to mention other evidence submitted by Ngethe; the IJ is not required to “parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner.” *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

PETITION DENIED

***

 ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6843 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6843

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA EXPANSION.

    Section 213 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act (subtitle 
B of title II of Public Law 109-338) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``and Ascension Parish'' 
        and inserting ``Ascension, and Lafourche Parish''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``14'' and inserting 
        ``15''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6843

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.
```
# L_2010328DE.01003601.xml

| 14.12.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 328/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 328/36

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 44/2001 des Rates vom 22. Dezember 2000 über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen in Zivil- und Handelssachen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 12 vom 16. Januar 2001
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 12 vom 16. Januar 2001

Seite 12, Artikel 47 Absatz 2:

anstatt:

„(2)   Die Vollstreckbarerklärung gibt die Befugnis, solche Maßnahmen zu veranlassen.“

muss es heißen:

„(2)   Die Vollstreckbarerklärung gibt die Befugnis, Maßnahmen, die auf eine Sicherung gerichtet sind, zu veranlassen.“;

Seite 13, Artikel 60 Absatz 3:

anstatt:

„(3)   Um zu bestimmen, ob ein trust seinen Sitz in dem Vertragsstaat hat, bei dessen Gerichten die Klage anhängig ist, wendet das Gericht sein Internationales Privatrecht an.“

muss es heißen:

„(3)   Um zu bestimmen, ob ein trust seinen Sitz in dem Mitgliedstaat hat, bei dessen Gerichten die Klage anhängig ist, wendet das Gericht sein Internationales Privatrecht an.“.

---
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Collaborative Islet 
Transplant Registry Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: March 15, 2022.
    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health/NIDDK, 6707 Democracy 
Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Peter J. Kozel, Ph.D., Chief, Training and 
Mentored Research Section, Scientific Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 7009, Bethesda, MD 
20892, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb9094819e978bbb969a9297d5959293d59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660d091c030a16260b070f0a48080f0e48010910">[email protected]</span></a>, 301-594-4721.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 1, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04623 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Multiple Trading Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Demola Realty Corporation et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.

Submitted January 3, 1944;

decided January 13, 1944.

Motion to amend the remittitur, to vacate the order of affirm- . anee of the Court of Appeals, dated July 29, 1942, to relieve appellant of certain stipulations and for leave to appellant to apply to the courts below for any relief to which appellant deems itself entitled, denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 289 N. Y. 559.)
#### Wm. F. Morgan, Resp’t, v. Catharine Taylor, App’lt.

No papers.

udgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent,

ffirming 24 N. Y. State Rep., 60.
#### Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; Marsden & Seledee; The O’Neal Law Firm, LLP; Thatcher Law Firm; Mitchell I. Batt, Individual Capacity; Bryan Chapman; Mr. Raouf Abdullah, Individual Capacity; C. Sukari Hardnett, Individual Capacity; Bradford Associates; Maryland State Education Association; Association of Supervisory & Administrative School; Maryland State Department of Education, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2263

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 24, 2017

Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN *&*SEMMES, Balti*280more, Maryland, Joel D. Seledee, MARS-DEN & SELEDEE, LLO, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding the underlying action to state court. Subject to exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012); *see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc.,*722 F.3d 574, 579-83 (4th Cir. 2013). Because the district court’s order does not fall within the exceptions provided by § 1447, the order is not appealable.

Accordingly, we grant California Casualty Indemnity Exchange’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but deny its motions for attorney’s fees and for reconsideration of our order granting Mua extensions of time. We grant Mua’s motions to exceed the length limitations for his appellate filings and for leave to file a supplemental brief, but deny Mua’s motions to suspend these proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### Richard WHITEHURST, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CVS PHARMACY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-15714

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Richard Whitehurst, Pro Se

Michael E. Brewer, Esquire, Attorney, Aexa Woerner, Esquire, Attorney, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Richard Whitehurst appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from discrimination on the basis of race, age, and disability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal on the basis of res judicata. *Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park,*159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

*502The district court properly dismissed Whitehurst’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Whitehurst’s claims arose out of the same transactional nucleus of facts, and were raised, or could have been raised, in a prior federal action between the parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. *See id.*(setting forth elements of res judicata and explaining that the doctrine bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and those that could have been raised in the prior action); *Tripati v. Henman,*857 F.2d 1366, 1367 (9th Cir. 1988) (a'final judgment in the district court retains its res judicata consequences while the decision is pending appeal).

We reject as unsupported by the record Whitehurst’s contentions regarding default judgment and defendant’s alleged fraud on the court.

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                           COHR INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS
                                                                ENDED           NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                          -----------------     -----------------
                                                            DECEMBER 31,          DECEMBER 31,
                                                          -----------------     -----------------
                                                           1996       1995       1996       1995
                                                          ------     ------     ------     ------
<S>                                                       <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON STOCK.................  $1,297     $  478     $3,292     $1,449
PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
  Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding........................................   5,162      2,112       4765       2112
  Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants after
     application of treasury stock method...............     383         --        383         --
                                                          -------    -------    -------    -------
  Number of shares used to compute primary earnings per
     share..............................................   5,545      2,112      5,148      2,112
Primary earnings per share..............................  $ 0.23     $ 0.23     $ 0.64     $ 0.69
                                                          =======    =======    =======    =======
</TABLE>
 
                                       11
# SPAR Group, Inc.

EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certification of Chief
Executive Officer Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2007 (this
report), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the registrant), the undersigned
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.       
          The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.       
          The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

| | /s/ Robert G. Brown
Robert G. Brown
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
May 21, 2007
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be
retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2



Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350)



The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



(a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 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 Authority.



/s/    LEO M. CHUPASKALeo M. ChupaskaChief Financial Officer Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityAugust 10, 2005




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UAS Type DJI Phantom 2+

UAS Serial # PH646044721V3.0 Flight # Mission # Locations DateTime Pilot Observer Max Alt Max Distance Max Speed Distance Traveled Flight Duriation Maintenance Required
#### In the Matter of Katherine G. Burri, Individually and as President of the Civil Service Forum, Council 189, et al., Respondents, against City of New York et al., Appellants.

Argued November 18, 1943;

decided January 6, 1944.

*777
      *Ignatius M. Wilkinson, Corporation Counsel (Murray Sendler*and *Charles F. Murphy*of counsel), for appellants.

*Albert De Boode*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thachbr, J.
Certification
         I, Susan Mills, certify that:

          1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and
all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Mortgage
Loan Trust 2006-WFHE3 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

          2.   Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic
reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;

          3.   Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution,
servicing and other information required to be provided under
Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in
the Exchange Act periodic reports;

          4.   Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance
statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic
reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement; and

          5.   All of the reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with
servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
this report on Form 10-K.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably
relied on information provided to me by the following
unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Citibank, N.A.

                                   Date March 30, 2007
                                   CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN
                                   TRUST INC.

                                   By: /s/ Susan Mills
                                   ------------------------
                                   Name: Susan Mills
                                   Title: Vice President
                                   Date: March 30, 2007
#### Jamaal GITTENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUIFAX, Defendant-Appellee, and TransUnion, Defendant.

No. 16-2256

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: May 1, 2017

Jamaal Gittens, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamaal Gittens appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his action in which he alleged that Equifax failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information on his credit report. The district court sua sponte dismissed the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), after finding that Gittens failed to effect service upon Equifax within 90 days of the filing of the complaint.

Rule 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. P, 4(m). “As indicated by the plain language of Rule 4(m), notice to the plaintiff must be given prior to a sua sponte dismissal.” *Thompson v. Maldonado,*309 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2002). Here, the court dismissed the action for failure to timely effect service upon Equifax, but failed to provide notice to Gittens prior to the dismissal. For this reason, we vacate,the dismissal order and remand to the district court for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and ar*300gument would not aid the decisional process.

*VACATED AND REMANDED*