alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony MORAIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-11101 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 13, 2017)

Karin Bethany Hoppmann, Jillian M. Jewell, W. Stephen Muldrow, Taylor G. Stout, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Anthony Moráis, Pro Se

*654Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas A. Burns, appointed appellate counsel for Anthony Moráis in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Morais’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 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 IDT Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James A. Courter, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:
   1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:
June 9, 2009
  /s/    JAMES A. COURTERJames
      A. Courter
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
 
 A signed
original of this written 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, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be
retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,191
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,633
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     46,317
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,131
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,051
<LOANS>                                        214,446
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,309
<DEPOSITS>                                     211,030
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,850
<LONG-TERM>                                     39,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 290,309
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,606
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,219
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   217
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,042
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,161
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,894
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,148
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,078
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,078
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,694
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7,619
<LOANS-NON>                                        438
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   339
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,947
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,170
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        5
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,210
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,210
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Kenneth B. ROSEMOND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel C. RATTRAY, Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the Regional Counsel; Kathryn Simpson, Chief Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1052

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Kenneth B. Rosemond, Appellant Pro Se. Christie Valerie Newman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth B. Rosemond appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Federal Tort Claims Act complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Rosemond that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The district court, noting that Rosemond’s objections were not specific, adopted the report of the magistrate judge and granted Defendants summary judgment.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 155, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Rosemond has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections *750after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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*
#### Derrick L. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Appellees

No. 16-5273

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: January 25, 2017

Warden (Bessemer JCJ), Bessemer, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Derrick L. Williams, Pro Se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USA), Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

BEFORE: Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant on November 21, 2016. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

*646ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered July 26, 2016 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that: (1) the U.S. Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution and such decisions are not subject to judicial review, see Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995); and (2) appellant’s allegations regarding a vast government conspiracy “lack[] an arguable basis in either law or in fact,” and are subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous, see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

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.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.21

                               September 18, 2000


Mr. Gary Merry
3513 Sandhurt Drive
Flowermound, Texas  75022

Dear Gary,

I would like to extend to you an offer for the position of Vice President,
Special Assistant in Charge of Technology with Jos. A. Bank Clothiers reporting
to David Ullman, with a salary of $125,000 per year at a weekly rate of
$2,403.85. Within 90 days of the date of acceptance of this letter you will be
promoted to position of Vice President, Chief Information Officer.

In addition to your base compensation you will be eligible to participate in the
company's Executive Bonus Program. If the company's financial goals are
realized, and you achieve your personal goals, you will be eligible for a bonus
of up to thirty (30%) percent of your actual base earnings for the period.

You will be entitled to three weeks of vacation to be accrued throughout your
first year of employment.

Relocation assistance of up to $45,000 will be extended to you for all expenses
within policy guidelines associated with moving including any gross up amount
necessary for tax purposes. Included in the relocation cap of $45,000 will be a
gross payment of $5,000 to help defray any additional moving expenses. In
addition, you will be entitled to all company benefits listed on the enclosed
benefit summary sheet, generally effective on the first day of the month
following 60 days of employment. We will pay for any COBRA premiums you incur
prior to eligibility in our health plan.

As is our practice, we would like you to understand that this letter in no way
constitutes an employment contract, and that you are aware that your employment
may be terminated by either you or the company. However, you will be eligible
for salary continuance for up to six months in the event your employment with
the company is terminated by the company without cause. Salary continuation will
cease in the event you accept other employment during the six months severance
period. In addition, we reserve the right to alter our benefit plans at any
time.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to speaking to you
in the near future.

Sincerely,

/s/: Bob Hensley

Bob Hensley
Executive Vice President - Operations
#### Willie BOLDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. CAVAZOS, Chief Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15592

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Willie Bolds, Pro Se

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 ***

California state prisoner Willie Bolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging procedural due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bolds’s due process claim arising from the alleged deprivation of his property because Bolds failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was not provided with the process he was due. *See Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene,*648 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2011) (a prison violates the due process clause when it “prescribes and enforces forfeitures of property without ... competent procedural protections”).

To the extent that Bolds alleged any other due process claim related to the deprivation of his property, the district court properly dismissed these claims because this court affirmed the dismissal of these claims -without leave to amend in *Bolds v. Cavazos,*599 Fed.Appx. 307, 307-08 (9th Cir. 2015). *See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County,*372 F.3d 1128, 1136 *525(9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case doctrine ... precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by ... a higher court in the same case.”).

Contrary to Bolds’s contention that the district court’s construction of his objections as a motion for reconsideration was improper, Bolds consented to a magistrate judge and therefore he was not entitled to file objections to the magistrate judge’s ruling.

We reject as meritless Bolds’s contentions that the district court misled plaintiff, failed to comply with this court’s order in *Bolds I,*failed to consider allegations in the third amended complaint, and lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32
----------

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
Act of 2002, I, Todd Noble, Chief Financial Officer of Advanced ID Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify, that to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 12, 2004

/s/ Todd D. Noble
----------------------------------------
Todd D. Noble, Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7027 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7027

   To amend title 1, United States Code, to clarify that certain tax 
      exemptions are not treated as Federal financial assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2024

Mr. Steube (for himself, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Cline, 
Mr. Nehls, and Mr. Weber of Texas) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 1, United States Code, to clarify that certain tax 
      exemptions are not treated as Federal financial assistance.

    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 ``Safeguarding Charity Act''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE NOT TO INCLUDE CERTAIN TAX 
              BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 9. FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

    ``In the case of any organization described in subsection (c) or 
(d) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or any 
organization described in section 401(a) of such Code, for purposes of 
any Federal law, rule, or regulation, unless explicitly provided 
otherwise, the term `Federal financial assistance,' or any other term 
referring to assistance provided by the Federal Government, shall not 
include any exemption from Federal income tax.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for chapter 1 of 
title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new item:

``9. Federal financial assistance.''.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section or the 
amendments made by this section shall be construed to imply that an 
exemption from Federal income taxes under section 501(a) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 constituted assistance from the Federal 
Government for periods before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH
NO. 02 - 15 - 00255 - CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B .D., E.D., AND M.D., CHILDREN

------------ FROM THE 325TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 325

- 487586

- 10

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINI ON 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------ On August 11, 2015 , September 18, 2015, and October 19, 2015, we notified appellant in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $1 9 5 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. Ap p. P. 42.3(c). In our September 18, 2015 order and our October 19, 2015 order, we also informed appellant that if he did not pay or make arrangements to pay for

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

preparation of the appellate record by October 29, 2015, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 37.3(b), 42.3(c). Appellant has not paid the $1 9 5 filing fee , s ee Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b), and on October 30, 2015, the trial court clerk informed this court that appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. Therefor e, b ecause appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 16 , 20 13 , 2 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). Appellant shall pay all costs of this ap peal, for which let execution issue.
See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth BONNIE SUDDERTH JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and SUDDERTH , J J.
DELIVERED: November 12 , 2015

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Suprem e Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals , and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- district Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127 (Aug. 16 , 20 13 ) (listing fees in courts of appeals).
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0252 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0252

**2002/252/EC: Commission Decision of 26 March 2002 amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community, as regards Canada (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 1214) **

*
Official Journal L 086 , 03/04/2002 P. 0042 - 0043 *

Commission Decision

of 26 March 2002

amending Decision 92/452/EEC establishing lists of embryo collection teams approved in third countries for export of bovine embryos to the Community, as regards Canada

(notified under document number C(2002) 1214)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/252/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/556/EEC of 25 September 1989 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in and importation from third countries of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 94/113/EC(2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) The competent veterinary services of the Canada have forwarded a request for the addition to the list, established by Commission Decision 92/452/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/46/EC(4), of teams officially approved in their territories for the export of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species to the Community.

(2) Guarantees regarding compliance with the requirements specified in Article 8 of Directive 89/556/EEC have been provided to the Commission by the competent veterinary services of Canada. The collection team concerned has been officially approved in Canada for exports to the Community.

(3) Decision 92/452/EEC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Decision 92/452/EEC, the following row is added concerning Canadian teams: ">TABLE>"

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 March 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 53, 24.2.1994, p. 23.

(3) OJ L 250, 29.8.1992, p. 40.

(4) OJ L 21, 24.1.2002, p. 21.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 22, 2022

NO. 03-22-00252-CR

Charles Raymond Lee, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER AND TRIANA

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal relating to the 2005 judgments of conviction rendered by the district court. 

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6776 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6776

To require a publicly traded company to disclose to the Securities and 
    Exchange Commission if the company has a diversity, equity, and 
               inclusion program to combat antisemitism.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 13, 2023

    Mr. Torres of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require a publicly traded company to disclose to the Securities and 
    Exchange Commission if the company has a diversity, equity, and 
               inclusion program to combat antisemitism.

    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 ``Antisemitism Inclusion in DEI Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION PROGRAM TO 
              COMBAT ANTISEMITISM.

    Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(t) Disclosure of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Program To 
Combat Antisemitism.--Each issuer required to file an annual report 
under subsection (a) shall disclose in that report if the issuer has a 
diversity, equity, and inclusion program that includes any initiative 
and training to combat antisemitism.''.
                                 <all>
```