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

No. 15-11868 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(October 13, 2017)

*899R. Brian Tanner, James D. Durham, Brian T. Rafferty, Edward J. Tarver, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, Nancy Greenwood, Patricia Green Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Augusta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Martin C. Puetz, retained counsel for Adrian Labar Ingram 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 Ingram’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
#### Barry J. BLUEFELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry S. COHEN; Joel S. Meisel; David Cohen, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1596

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

*789Barry J. Bluefeld, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew D. Matkov, SALTZ MATKOV PC, Wayne, Pennsylvania, for Appellees.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Barry J. Bluefeld appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his civil action filed against the directors and officers of a corporation in which he is a shareholder. We have reviewed the record as well as the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Bluefeld v. Cohen,*No. 8:15-cv-02857-PX, 2017 WL 1546406 (D. Md. Apr. 27, 2017). 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*
#### Cedric GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-4056

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed July 26, 2017

(D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00175-BSJ) (D. Utah)

Cedric Greene, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Caídos F. Lucero Circuit Judge

Cedric Greene, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against the Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct (“the Board”). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

In February 2017, Greene filed a complaint with the Board against a state court judge who had previously dismissed *783Greene’s civil lawsuit. Greene then sued the Board in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, challenging its decision. The district court appropriately dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Greene does not argue that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). His only asserted basis for federal question jurisdiction is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which is a criminal statute that does not confer jurisdiction in this civil lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Clements v. Chapman, 189 Fed.Appx. 688, 690, 692 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (section 1001 does not provide for private cause of action).

AFFIRMED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G), The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Exhibit 35.1
 SERVICER
        COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM
        1123)
  RE: 
        **First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust
        2006-AA7**
  We
        the
        undersigned authorized officers, of First Horizon Home Loan Corporation,
        and its
        wholly owned subsidiary, First Tennessee Mortgage Services Inc. (collectively,
        the “Servicer”)  pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, do hereby
        certify that:
 1.            
A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period
        from November 1, 2006 and
        through December 31, 2006 and of the Servicer’s performance under applicable
        servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.
 2.            
To the best of our 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.
 First
        Horizon Home Loan Corporation
 By:
        /s/ Kim Yowell
 Date: 
03/01/07
 Name: 
Kim
        Yowell
 Title: 
SVP,
        Servicing Manager
 First
        Tennessee Mortgage Services, Inc.
 By:  
        /s/ Terry L. McCoy
 Date: 
        03/01/07
 Name: 
        Terry L. McCoy
 Title: 
        Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 763 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 763

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
                     STAR, 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. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of title 46, United 
States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 
App. 883), the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
STAR, hull identification number HA2833700774, and State of Hawaii 
registration number HA8337D.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 763

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel EVENING 
                     STAR, and for other purposes.
```
#### IN RE: James Ellis ARDEN, Debtor, Martina A. Silas, Appellant, v. James Ellis Arden, Appellee.

No. 15-60053

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 6, 2017

Submission Withdrawn February 17, 2017

Resubmitted June 30, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed July 05, 2017

*597Martina A. Silas, Pro Se

Steven R. Fox, Attorney, Steven R Fox, Encino, CA, James Ellis Arden, North Hollywood, CA, for Appellee

Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Creditor Martina A. Silas appeals that Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order vacating summary judgment in her favor and remanding the case to the bankruptcy court to determine whether debtor James Ellis Arden’s malicious prosecution of Silas was “willful” for 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) purposes. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Silas argues that we have jurisdiction to consider her appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), which permits consideration of “appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees” issued by a district court or bankruptcy appellate panel sitting in review of a bankruptcy court decision. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) is limited to appeals arising from final decisions, judgments, orders, or decrees. Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Co. (In re Landmark Fence Co.), 801 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2015). An order in a bankruptcy case is final when it “finally dispose[s] of discrete disputes within the larger case.” Howard Delivery Serv. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 547 U.S. 651, 657 n.3, 126 S.Ct. 2105, 165 L.Ed.2d 110 (2006) (emphasis omitted). Where a bankruptcy court’s order does not “alter the status quo or fix the parties’ rights and obligations,” it does not finally dispose of a discrete dispute. Gugliuzza v. FTC (In re Gugliuzza), 852 F.3d 884, 897 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1686, 1692, 191 L.Ed.2d 621 (2015)). Thus, for example, where a bankruptcy court denies a debtor’s proposed confirmation plan and gives the debtor leave to amend the proposed plan, the denial is not final because the “parties’ rights and obligations remain unsettled.” Bullard, 135 S.Ct. at 1693.

Here, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision did not finally dispose of a discrete dispute, alter the legal relationship between the parties, or fix the parties’ rights and obligations. It left the ultimate question of whether the judgment debt is nondischargeable open and unresolved. The order therefore lacked finality, and so we lack jurisdiction to consider Silas’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).

DISMISSED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Ashraf Abdul Jaber ALI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1379

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 2017

Decided: November 8, 2017

*303Helen L. Parsonage, ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jonathan A. Robbins, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joanna L. Watson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ashraf Abdul Jaber Ali, a native of Kuwait and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his request for a continuance. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. *See Lendo v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 2007) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Ali*(B.I.A. Mar. 3, 2017). We also deny Ali’s motion to file an attachment to his brief. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(4)(A) (2012). 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Mary MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., FKA Bank of New York as Trustee for the CWMBS, Inc., as Trustee for the CWMBS, Inc.. CHL Mortgage Pass-through Trust 2006-8; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17452

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Mary Martinez, Pro Se

Brett P. Ryan, Rco Legal, Ps, Henderson, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Certificate Holders of the CWMBS, Inc.

Gregory L. Wilde, Esquire, Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee National Default Servicing Corporation

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*615MEMORANDUM **

Mary Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees in her diversity action related to foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In her opening brief, Martinez argues that she is “informed and believes” that she never received defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and therefore never filed an opposition. However, the record reveals that defendants properly served the motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and Martinez has not provided any evidence that the motion for attorney’s fees, unlike other motions and court orders, failed to reach her.

We do not address the merits of the district court’s attorney’s fee order because Martinez has not specifically and distinctly raised and argued the merits of that order in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We do not consider Martinez’s arguments relating to the dismissal of her underlying claims, or the district court’s failure to grant further leave to amend, because Martinez could have raised these issues in her prior appeal, which was dismissed for failure to prosecute.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; American Women: Assessing Risk Epidemiologically (AWARE) (R01 Clinical Trial Optional).                    

*Date:*                         April 5, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G22B, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kristina S. Wickham, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G22B, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-5390,                         *kristina.wickham@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 7, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-05136 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond Edward CHESTNUT, a/k/a Snoop, a/k/a Ray, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7578

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 29, 2017

Decided: April 5, 2017

Raymond Edward Chestnut, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence,' South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*305PER CURIAM:

Raymond Edward Chestnut appeals the district court’s July 21, 2015 text order denying his motion, seeking a reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within 14 days after the entry of judgment. With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); *United States v. Reyes,*759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). Chestnut filed his notice of appeal more than a year after entry of the order he seeks to challenge.* Because Chestnut’s appeal is inordinately late, we dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. Chestnut’s motion for release on bond is denied. 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*

*

 Chestnut’s representations that he filed his notice of appeal on August 3, 2015, simply are not credible.
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Qingdao Footwear, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
Meuse, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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:
November 4, 2010





/s/
      Joseph MeuseJoseph
      Meuse, Principal Financial and
              Accounting
      Officer
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.16.3  


 
 

AMENDMENT NO. 2
  TO
  AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF
  ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC.
  INCOME SECURITY PLAN    
  


        The Amendment and Restatement of Alliant Techsystems Inc. Income Security Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended as follows, effective as of March 19,
2002: 



	1.
	Exhibit A
of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 



"Exhibit A 


LIST
OF INCOME SECURITY PLAN PARTICIPANTS

AS OF MARCH 19, 2002 


TIER ONE  


All ATK elected officers 


TIER TWO  


All ATK appointed corporate Vice Presidents,

subsidiary Presidents and subsidiary Group Vice Presidents" 



	2.
	All
other terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 














QuickLinks


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC. INCOME SECURITY PLAN
Exhibit 32.2

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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Chromcraft Revington, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank
T. Kane, Vice President-Finance and 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, that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.





/s/ Frank T. Kane
---------------------------
Frank T. Kane
Vice President-Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
August 7, 2003


     This certification is furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document or for any other purpose.
exv4w13



 


EXHIBIT 4.13




PROMISSORY NOTE




	 	 	 
	$500,000

 	 	
November 2, 1998

Alexandria, Virginia





     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, a Virginia corporation (the
Borrower) hereby promises to pay to the order of RESEARCH INDUSTRIES
INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation (the Lender), at 123 North Pitt Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or such other location as the holder hereof may in
writing designate, the principal sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/00 DOLLARS
($500,000), in lawful money of the United States of America in immediately
available funds, on January 30, 1999, without defense, offset or counterclaim,
together with interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof, at such office, in
like money and funds, from the date hereof at the rate of eight (8) per cent per
annum.


     This Note is subject to the terms and conditions of the Subordination
Agreement dated January 27, 1998 entered into by and among Research Industries
Incorporated, Crestar Bank and Halifax Corporation as modified in writing by
Crestar Bank in a certain letter dated October 30, 1998.


     This Note is one of two Notes referred to in the November 2, 1998
Amendment to the Loan Agreement between the Borrower and the Lender dated
October 8, 1998.


     The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, notice of dishonor,
protest and all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery,
acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note. Lender shall be entitled
to recover any costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the collection
of this Note.


     This Note may be prepaid at anytime without penalty.


     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without reference to conflict of laws
principles.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this note to be executed by
its duly authorized President as of the day and year first above written.





	 	 
	 	BORROWER
	 
	 	HALIFAX CORPORATION

a Virginia Corporation
	 
	 	By:  /s/  HOWARD C. MILLS

	 	


	 	
Name:  Howard C. Mills

Title: President