alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donna J. HOCKMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Phyllis BASKERVILLE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6027

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Donna J. Hockman, Appellant Pro Se.

Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*278PER CURIAM:

Donna J. Hockman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 petition 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 Hockman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTIONS 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I Ronald E.
Badke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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 Company.





By /s/ Ronald E. Badke
   ------------------------
   Ronald E. Badke
   Chief Financial Officer
   August 14, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6978 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6978

 To establish incentive pay for positions requiring specialized skills 
        to combat fentanyl trafficking, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2024

    Mr. Neguse (for himself and Ms. Lee of Florida) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                             Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish incentive pay for positions requiring specialized skills 
        to combat fentanyl trafficking, 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 ``Combating Online Fentanyl 
Trafficking Act''.

SEC. 2. INCENTIVE PAY AUTHORITIES FOR POSITIONS REQUIRING SPECIALIZED 
              SKILLS TO COMBAT FENTANYL TRAFFICKING.

    (a) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``cyber skills'' means 
expertise in computers, computer networks, information technology, or 
the internet.
    (b) Incentive Pay.--Subject to the availability of appropriations, 
and in accordance with the comparable level of the General Schedule, 
the Attorney General shall provide incentive pay, in an amount that is 
not more than 25 percent of the basic pay of the individual, to any 
individual appointed to a position in the Department of Justice that 
requires significant cyber skills to aid in the detection, prevention, 
or prosecution of fentanyl trafficking.
    (c) Limitations.--Any incentive pay received under subsection (b) 
by an individual in a position in the Department of Justice--
            (1) shall be disregarded in calculating the aggregate of 
        the basic pay and premium pay paid to the individual for 
        purposes of the pay period limitation and the annual limitation 
        under section 5547 of title 5, United States Code; and
            (2) shall be treated as part of basic pay for purposes of 
        section 8331(3) of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
#### WAKE COUNTY NC HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Scott DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-1050

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

William Scott Davis, Jr.-, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wake Cty. Human Servs. v. Davis,*No. 5:14-cv-00047-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 22, 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7029 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7029

       To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove the 
    differentiation between mead and low alcohol by volume wine for 
                 purposes of the tax imposed on wines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2024

 Mr. Blumenauer (for himself and Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania) 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 remove the 
    differentiation between mead and low alcohol by volume wine for 
                 purposes of the tax imposed on wines.

    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 ``Bubble Tax Modernization Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. REMOVING DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN MEAD AND LOW ALCOHOL BY VOLUME 
              WINE.

    (a) In General.--Section 5041(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(h) Low Alcohol by Volume Wine.--
            ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsections (a) and 
        (b)(1), low alcohol by volume wine shall be deemed to be still 
        wines containing not more than 16 percent of alcohol by volume.
            ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
        `low alcohol by volume wine' means a wine--
                    ``(A) containing not more than 0.64 gram of carbon 
                dioxide per hundred milliliters of wine, except that 
                the Secretary may by regulations prescribe such 
                tolerances to this limitation as may be reasonably 
                necessary in good commercial practice, and
                    ``(B) which contains less than 8.5 percent alcohol 
                by volume.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to wine removed after December 31, 2024.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,754
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    159,468
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        145,266
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 322,876
<DEPOSITS>                                     217,110
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,251
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 322,876
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,542
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,020
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    71
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,633
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,344
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,175
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,458
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  22
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,772
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,772
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,022
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.91
<LOANS-NON>                                        752
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    163
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,950
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       36
<RECOVERIES>                                        26
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,030
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,571
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            459
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement No. 333-144749 on Form S-8 of our report datedMarch 31, 2008 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 158 on December 31, 2006), relating to theconsolidated financial statements of Beneficial Mutual Bancorp, Inc. andsubsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BeneficialMutual Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ Deloitte & ToucheLLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert BIGNEY, a.k.a. Robert G. Bigney, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-11311 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 15, 2017)

Lisa A. Hirsch, Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Carmen M. Lineberger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Pierce, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, Fletcher Peacock, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Pierce, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM;

Robert Bigney appeals his 24-month total sentence imposed after the district court revoked his term of supervised release, To the extent he challenges the district court’s- guideline calculation, we do not review Bigney’s claim because he waived that argument at sentencing. Furthermore, Bigney’s sentences were substantively reasonable: they were within his guideline range, and the court considered the relevant sentencing factors and the parties’ arguments—including those about Bigney’s ADHD—at sentencing.

AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1578 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1578

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1578/2001 of 1 August 2001 determining the sensitive production areas and/or the groups of high-quality varieties exempt from application of the quota buyback programme in raw tobacco **

*
Official Journal L 209 , 02/08/2001 P. 0013 - 0013 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1578/2001

of 1 August 2001

determining the sensitive production areas and/or the groups of high-quality varieties exempt from application of the quota buyback programme in raw tobacco

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1336/2000(2), and in particular Article 14a thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Under Article 34(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the raw tobacco sector(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1441/2001(4), the Commission must determine, on the basis of proposals from the Member States, which sensitive production areas and/or groups of high-quality varieties, up to a maximum of 25 % of each Member State's guarantee threshold, are to be exempt from application of the quota buyback programme.

(2) At the request of some Member States, these groups of high-quality varieties should be determined.

(3) Because Article 35(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 stipulates that the Member State must make public its intention to sell from 1 September so that other producers may buy the quota before it is actually bought back, this Regulation must apply from 31 August 2001.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Tobacco,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities of groups of high-quality varieties exempt from quota buyback for the 2001 harvest are as follows:

in Portugal:

>TABLE>

in France:

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 31 August 2001.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 August 2001.

For the Commission

Frederik Bolkestein

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 70.

(2) OJ L 154, 27.6.2000, p. 2.

(3) OJ L 358, 31.12.1998, p. 17.

(4) OJ L 193, 17.7.2001, p. 5.
10.4 Assignment and Assumption of PSA






Exhibit 10.4
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT




For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., a California corporation (“Assignor”), hereby assigns to SIR SONOMA GRANDE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), all of Assignor’s rights and obligations under and in regard to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated February 15, 2012 (as may be amended, the “Purchase Agreement”), between Sonoma Grande Tulsa, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Seller”) and Assignor for the purchase and sale of that certain real property located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”).


Assignee hereby agrees to and shall assume, perform and be fully responsible for the performance of all of the obligations of Assignor under the Purchase Agreement.


All of the provisions, covenants and agreements contained in the Assignment shall extend to and be binding upon the respective legal representatives, successors and assigns of Assignor and Assignee.  This Assignment represents the entire agreement between Assignor and Assignee with respect to the subject matter of the Assignment , and all prior or contemporaneous agreements regarding such matters are hereby rendered null and void and of no force and effect. 


(SIGNATURES APPEARS ON FOLLOWING PAGE)



1










WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF, as of this May 24, 2012. 




ASSIGNOR:


STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., 
a California corporation


                        	
		
	By:
	/s/ Ana Marie del Rio

	 
	Ana Marie del Rio

	 
	Vice President




 
 
                    
ASSIGNEE:


SIR SONOMA GRANDE, LLC
an Delaware limited liability company


By:     Steadfast Income Advisor, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability         
company, its Manager
                            
                            	
		
	By:
	/s/ Kevin J. Keating

	 
	Kevin J. Keating

	 
	Chief Accounting Officer





















2






Exhibit A


DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND




Tract 1:


Lot 1, Block 1, Sonoma Grande, a subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County,
Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat No. 6216.


Tract 2:


The non-exclusive easement for the purpose of providing all emergency and
governmental vehicles and equipment access appurtenant to Tract 1 over and across portions of the following described property, as set forth in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded as Document  
No. 2011071534: Lot 2, Block 1, Sonoma Grande, a subdivision in the City of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma, according to the recorded Plat No. 6216









3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUPERIOR SERVICES, INC.
AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,013)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,404
<PP&E>                                         340,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                (95,800)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 397,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,145
<BONDS>                                          4,021
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           268
<OTHER-SE>                                     279,587
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   397,921
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,119
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   327
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,437
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,282
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
#### Kirby *v.*Kalbacher, Appellant.

*104Submitted November 25, 1952.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Bell, Chidsey and Musmanno, JJ.

*Maxwell L. Davis*and *J. Sidney*Hoffman, for appellant, submitted a brief.

*Samson B.*Bernstein, for appellee, submitted a brief.

March 23, 1953:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

A review of the record reveals no error in the Chancellor’s Adjudication Sur Account save the item covered by Defendant’s Exception No. 2 which refers to the “Court’s failure to deduct from the gross profits of the partnership the uncollectible accounts receivable.” In its final Opinion the learned lower court accepted the correctness of this Exception to the extent of permitting one-half of $363.60, representing the accounts receivable which had become uncollectible prior to the date of dissolution, to be deducted from *105the amount to be paid plaintiff by defendant, thus reducing this amount from $3,071.50 to $2,889.70. We agree that this was in accordance with the facts and the law applicable thereto.

We also agree that defendant wus not entitled to any compensation for services in operating the partnership business after plaintiff withdrew from active participation. Generally speaking, a partner is not entitled to compensation for services in performing partnership matters or in winding up its affairs. A right to compensation arises only where the services rendered extend beyond normal partnership functions: *Bracht v. Connell,*313 Pa. 397, 404, 170 A. 297, 300; *Herman v. Pepper,*317 Pa. 349, 352, 176 A. 201, 202. The facts of this case quite clearly demonstrate that the services in question were only those necessary to the successful operation of an existing partnership, and therefore no compensation for the performance of such services could properly be claimed.

The final decree, therefore, is affirmed on the Opinion and Order filed by the court en banc.

Decree affirmed. Costs to be paid by Appellant.