alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40961

CHARLES C. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JOHN STICE; MARSHALLO HERKLOTZ; C. T. O'REILLY; H. D. JOHNSON, M. D.; E. MURPHY, Sgt.; P. TAYLOR, Officer; RETRIEVE UNIT; NURSE AIDE, Infirmary; WILSON, Mrs., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-95-CV-154

- - - - - - - - - - March 12, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHE’, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Charles C. Davis, Texas prisoner # 653273, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The motion for leave to appeal IFP is GRANTED. Davis is not required to pay an initial partial filing fee; however, he shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C.No. 96-40961 - 2 - § 1915(a) The agency having custody of Davis is directed to forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. See id

. Davis filed his complaint against the defendants in their official capacities. Because a decree against personnel of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice operates against the sovereign, the suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman , 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984); Hawaii v. Gordon , 373 U.S. 57, 58 (1963) (per curiam); Harris v. Angelina County, Tex. , 31 F.3d 331, 337-38 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994). Davis’ appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.d. 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6444 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6444

 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of 
     Education to annually adjust Federal Perkins loan amounts for 
                               inflation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2016

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of 
     Education to annually adjust Federal Perkins loan amounts for 
                               inflation.

    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 ``Perkins Loan Program Inflation 
Adjustment Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PERKINS LOAN AMOUNTS ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION.

    Section 464(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087dd(a)(2)) is amended by adding the following:
    ``(C) With respect to each academic year, the Secretary shall 
adjust the amounts described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) by the 
percentage equal to the estimated percentage change in the Consumer 
Price Index (as determined by the Secretary using the definition in 
section 478(f)) for the most recent calendar year ending prior to the 
beginning of that academic year.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        LAST MILE LOGISTICS GROUP, INC.

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the annual report of Last Mile Logistics Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Brian P. Flood, President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting 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, that to the best of 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 as of and for the periods indicated.

Date:  April 5, 2007               /s/Brian P. Flood
                                   ------------------
                                   Brian P. Flood
                                   President, Chief Operating Officer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Annual Report of SentiSearch, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB forthe period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph K. Pagano, 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: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toSentiSearch, Inc. and will be retained by SentiSearch, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.        Date:  April 2, 2007 By:  */s/*Joseph K. Pagano    Joseph K. Pagano    Chief Executive Officer
2013

REGION Electric % Gas % Oil %

NORTHEAST 738 1.7% 3,692 25.7% 475 91.9%

MIDWEST 2,315 5.4% 4,683 32.6% 19 3.7%

SOUTH 37,186 87.4% 1,854 12.9% 15 2.9%

WEST 2,296 5.4% 4,154 28.9% 8 1.5%

TOTAL 42,535 74.1% 14,383 25.0% 517 0.9%
**-----~---0-~--** 

### ·--------

# ~) Maurice Ceasar, Plaintiff,
v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. Carnigie Institute/Theatre 

### et a!., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED JUN 1 1

## 2012 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia


# 12 

# 0959

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs

### prose complaint and application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. The subject matterjurisdiction ofthe federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federaljurisdiction is available only when a "federal question" is presented or the parties are ofdiverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking reliefin the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court'sjurisdiction. 

### See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal ofthe action. 

### See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiffis an inmate at the District ofColumbia Jail. He sues a private entity in the District ofColumbia, its receptionist whom he does not name, and eight unnamed contract painters purportedly under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 "for Deprivation-Criminal Assault With Reckless Intents, Assaults to Cause Bodily Harm (Also) Violation ofDue Process ofLaw, Abuse of Authority." Compl. at 

### 1. Plaintiffseeks equitable reliefand $500,000 in damages. 

### !d. at 18.

### The complaint does not present a federal question because § 1983 applies only to "person[s] who [act], under color ofany statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, ofany State or Territory
or the District ofColumbia," which is not pleaded here. 1 

### The complaint does not assert or plead facts reflecting diversityjurisdiction. A separate Order ofdismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: May

# _JJ_, 2012 United States District Judge

1 

### Judicial notice is taken ofthe fact that the address plaintiffhas listed for the defendants is that ofthe Carnegie Institution for Science, which is not a governmental entity. 

### See http:// carnegiescience.edu. 2
S. 677

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To repeal a redundant venue provision, 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. REPEAL.

(a) REPEAL.—Subsection (a) of section 1392 of title 28, United

States Code, is repealed.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Subsection (b) of section 1392

of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘(b) Any’’

and inserting ‘‘Any’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6996
JESSE JAMES PRITCHARD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00129-CMH) Submitted: March 28, 2008 Decided: April 21, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse James Pritchard, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jesse James Pritchard, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pritchard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motion to compel prison officials to return legal documents is denied. 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
EXHIBIT 35.3
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QA10 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:
1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable  servicing  agreement has been made under my  supervision.  2. To the
best of my  knowledge,  based on such review,  the Servicer has fulfilled all of
its  obligations  under  the  applicable  servicing  agreement  in all  material
respects throughout such period.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      ------------------------
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Managing Director
| (1) | The Report fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of      1934; and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The information contained in the      Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition      and result of operations of theCompany. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:  | /s/      Joseph K. Pagano                                                                 |   |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|      | Joseph      K. Pagano                                                                     |
|      | Chief      Executive Officer and Treasurer(Principal      Executive and FinancialOfficer) |

----
#### Joseph W. EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Frank BISHOP; The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-6210

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 2017

Decided: July 10, 2017

Anna S. Kelly, William Nelson Sinclair, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*738PER CURIAM:

Joseph W. Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process,

*DISMISSED*
|   |
|--------|

 

EXHIBIT 13.1

 

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Grupo Aeroportuario del Centro Norte, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: April 25, 2014 |   | By: /s/ Porfirio González Álvarez |   |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |                                        |   |
|                       |   | Name: Porfirio González Álvarez   |   |
|                       |   |                                        |   |
|                       |   | Title: Chief Executive Officer              |   |
|                       |   |                                        |   |
| Dated: April 25, 2014 |   | By: /s/ José Luis Guerrero Cortés |   |
|                       |   |                                        |   |
|                       |   | Name: José Luis Guerrero Cortés   |   |
|                       |   |                                        |   |
|                       |   | Title: Chief Financial Officer              |   |

 

----
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 661 

To terminate the Economic Development Administration, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. POMPEO (for himself, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, and Mr. WESTMORELAND) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To terminate the Economic Development Administration, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EDA Elimination Act 

5 of 2015’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 661 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD2 MINISTRATION. 

3 (a) TERMINATION.—The Economic Development Ad4 ministration is terminated. 

5 (b) REPEAL.—The Public Works and Economic De6 velopment Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.) is re7 pealed. 

8 (c) CONCLUSION OF BUSINESS.—The Secretary of 

9 Commerce shall take such actions as may be necessary 

10 and appropriate to conclude the outstanding affairs of the 

11 Economic Development Administration, including disposi12 tions of personnel, assets, and obligations. 

13 (d) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

14 This section may not be construed to prevent the expendi15 ture of any funds received before the effective date of this 

16 Act. Such funds shall be subject to the laws and regula17 tions that would have applied to the funds if this section 

18 had not been enacted. 

19 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

20 This Act shall take effect on the first day of the first 

21 fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this 

22 Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Romancee Oshay GEORGE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-12294 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(September 18, 2017)

*655Robert Benjamin Cornell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, John C. Shipley, Matthew John Langley, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, Nalina Sombuntham, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ricardo Bascuas, University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Romancee George appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(1). On appeal, George argues that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to convict him because the government failed to demonstrate that George had the requisite intent to cause serious bodily injury or death: a required element of his offense. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, even when raised for the first time on appeal. United States v. Iguaran, 821 F.3d 1335, 1336 (11th Cir. 2016). “So long as the indictment charges the defendant with violating a valid federal statute as enacted in the United States Code, it alleges an ‘offense against the laws of the United States’ and, thereby, invokes the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.” United States v. Brown, 752 F.3d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir. 2014).

Here, the indictment—tracking the pertinent statutory language—stated that George “with the intent to cause death and serious bodily harm, did take a motor vehicle that had been transported, shipped, and received in interstate and foreign commerce ... from the person and presence of another ... by force and violence, and by intimidation, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2119(1) and 2.” Because the indictment charged George with violating a valid federal statute, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over George’s criminal case. See id.

George’s contention that the government failed to provide a factual basis sufficient to prove the intent element of the crime does not implicate the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.* See United States v. Fairchild, 803 F.2d 1121, 1124 (11th Cir. 1986) (defendant’s claim that an insufficient factual basis existed to support the indictment was non-jurisdictional).

AFFIRMED.

*

 George denies expressly that he is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his guilty plea. His challenge is only to the district court's jurisdiction.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Mark
Gatto, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Co-President and Chief Acquisitions Officer
of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of the Registrant, in connection with the
Annual Report of ICON Income Fund Twelve, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”) certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that::





1.
            The
      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the LLC.








Date:March 31,
2008





/s/Mark Gatto_____


Mark
Gatto


Co-Chief
Executive Officer, Co-President, and Chief Acquisitions Officer


ICON
Capital Corp


Manager
of ICON Leasing Fund Twelve, LLC
A Partnership of
                                 Incorporated Professionals
DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP---CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
                       PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form
20-F of Horizon Industries, Ltd. of our report dated May 30,
2007 appearing in the Proscpectus, which is part of such
Registration Statement, and to the reference of us under the
heading Experts in such Prospecuts.



                                  DAVIDSON & COMPANY LLP

                                  Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

August 30, 2007



                 A Member of SC INTERNATIONAL
1200-609 Granville Street, P.O. Box 10372, Pacific Centre,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, V7Y 1G6
Telephone (604) 687-0947 Fax (604) 687-6172