alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DIAMOND FALLS ESTATES, LLC; Shirley M. Buafo; Charles K. Buafo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NANTAHALA BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Steve E. Gravett; Excell Partners, LLC; Jane/John Does; Luxur, Inc.; Realty Acquisitions, LLC, Defendants.

No. 15-2210

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: March 21, 2017

Decided: April 7, 2017

ARGUED: John Anthony Moore, MOORE LAW GROUP, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellants. Esther Elizabeth Manheimer, VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael S. Rosier, ROSIER LAW FIRM, Lanham, Maryland, for Appellants.

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

This case arises under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and involves a loan that the Appellants, Diamond Falls Estates, LLC, Shirley M. Buafo, and Charles K. Buafo, obtained from Nantahala Bank & Trust Company (“Nantahala”) to develop a North Carolina property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Nantahala on the Appellants’ claims and on Nantahala’s counterclaims.

Appellants present the following issues for our review:

> I. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim;

> II. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud claims;

> *317III. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for summary judgment on the negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation claims;, and

> IV. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for summary judgment on the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim.

Having had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, and having fully considered the parties’ contentions, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough memorandum opinion. *Diamond Falls Estates, LLC v. Nantahala Bank & Trust Co.,*No. 2:14-cv-00007-MR-DLH, 2015 WL 5232687 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8,2015).

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6394 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6394

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 7, 2016

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress 
 a report on promoting broadband Internet access service for veterans.

    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 ``Improving Broadband Access for 
Veterans Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON PROMOTING BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE FOR 
              VETERANS.

    (a) Veteran Defined.--In this section, the term ``veteran'' has the 
meaning given the term in section 101 of title 38, United States Code.
    (b) Report Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall 
submit to Congress a report on promoting broadband Internet access 
service for veterans, in particular low-income veterans and veterans 
residing in rural areas. In such report, the Commission shall--
            (1) examine such access and how to promote such access; and
            (2) provide findings and recommendations for Congress with 
        respect to such access and how to promote such access.
    (c) Public Notice and Opportunity To Comment.--In preparing the 
report required by subsection (b), the Commission shall provide the 
public with notice and an opportunity to comment on broadband Internet 
access service for veterans, in particular low-income veterans and 
veterans residing in rural areas, and how to promote such access.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-211734) pertaining to the 2012 Amended and Restated Long Term Incentive Plan of Dynegy Inc.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-222164) of Dynegy Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-4, as amended by Amendment No. 1 No. 333-222049) of Vistra Energy Corp.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated February 22, 2018, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Dynegy Inc. and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Dynegy Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Dynegy Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2017.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Houston, Texas

February 22, 2018
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Deonta STROM, a/k/a Jae Dee, a/k/a Jae, a/k/a J-Dirt, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6921

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 28, 2017

Decided: December 8, 2017

Justin Deonta Strom, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Inayat Delawala, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Following our prior decision remanding this matter for further proceedings, *see United States v. Strom,*688 Fed.Appx. 233 (4th Cir. 2017), the district court granted Justin Deonta Strom’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding, reconsidered two claims previously raised in Strom’s § 2255 motion, and denied those claims on the merits. Strom seeks to appeal this order, which is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate of ap-pealability 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 motion 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 Strom 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Damion Kentrell WHITE, also known as D.K., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11614

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 14, 2017

Brian W. Portugal, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Donald Robin McCarty, Law Office of Robin McCarty, Midlothian, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant White appeals from the 240-month sentence he received after the district court accepted his guilty plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(2) based on a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). We DISMISS the appeal.

White admits that “[t]he crux of [his] objection in the district court and complaint now on appeal is that his *conduct*did not constitute a crime of violence.... ” (emphasis added). White asks this court to do the very'thing that the Supreme Court has instructed it not to do: look beyond the elements of the offense to the underlying facts to determine whether 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence.

In determining whether an offense is a crime of violence, this court looks “only to the statutory definitions—i.e., the elements—of a defendant’s offense, and not to the particular facts underlying the convictions.” *United States v. Buck,*847 F.3d 267, 274 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing *Descamps v. United States,*570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 2283, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013)), *cert. denied sub. nom. Allen v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2231, 198 L.Ed.2d 672 (2017). White’s brief is not entitled to liberal construction because he is represented by counsel. *See Woodfox v. Cain,*609 F.3d 774, 792 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, White has not adequately briefed the only issue he raises. This court has recognized that failure to-adequately brief an issue on appeal can constitute waiver of the argument. *N.W. Enters., Inc. v. City of Houston,*352 F.3d 162, 183 n.24 (5th Cir. 2003); *see also*Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); *United States v. Martinez,*263 F.3d 436, 438 (5th Cir. 2001); *United States v. Thames,*214 F.3d 608, 611 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000); *L & A Contracting Co. v. S. Concrete Servs.,*17 F.3d 106, 113 (5th Cir. 1994); *United States v. Beaumont,*972 F.2d 553, 563 (5th Cir. 1992). This court finds that White has waived by inadequate briefing the only issue he raises. We DISMISS the appeal.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6889 

To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require that 

annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an 

estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit and of the public debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2023 

Ms. MALOY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Budget 

A BILL 

To amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 

to require that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an estimate of the cost per 

taxpayer of the deficit and of the public debt. 

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 ‘‘True Cost Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6889 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT IN BUDGET SUBMISSION WITH RE2 SPECT TO THE COST PER TAXPAYER OF THE 

3 DEFICIT. 

4 Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(40)(A) in the case of a fiscal year in which 

7 the budget is projected to result in a deficit, an esti8 mate of the pro rata cost of such deficit for tax9 payers who will file individual income tax returns for 

10 taxable years ending during such fiscal year; and 

11 ‘‘(B) in the case of any fiscal year, an estimate 

12 of the pro rata cost of the public debt for taxpayers 

13 who will file individual income tax returns for tax14 able years ending during such fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Freddy Moreno TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael C. SAYRE, M.D., “CMO”, sued in their official and individual capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15760

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 21, 2017

Freddy Moreno Torres, Pro Se

Rohit Kodical, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

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).

MEMORANDUM **

Freddy Moreno Torres, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Torres failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in treating his chronic pain and the 2013 injury to his left arm. *See-id.*at 1057-60 (a prison official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; negligence and a mere difference in medical opinion are insufficient to establish deliberate indifference); *see also Estelle v. Gamble,*429 U.S. 97, 107, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (“A medical decision not to order an X-ray, or like measures, does not represent cruel and unusual punishment.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 45 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 45

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the rotunda of the United States Capitol is hereby authorized to 
be used on May 2, 1996, at 2 o'clock post meridian for the presentation 
of the Congressional Gold Medal to Reverend and Mrs. Billy Graham. 
Physical preparations for the conduct of the ceremony shall be carried 
out in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the 
Architect of the Capitol.

            Passed the Senate March 12, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 45

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Authorizing the use of the Capitol Rotunda on May 2, 1996, for the 
presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to Reverend and Mrs. Billy 
                                Graham.
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10657 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. HUMBERTO RODRIGUEZ

- LOZANO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 17

- 1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Humberto Rodriguez

- Lozano appeals the 48

- month above

- G uidelines sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Rodriguez

- Lozano argues that the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause in applying the 2016 Guidelines Manual becau se the 2015 Guidelines, which were in effect at the time he was found unlawfully present in the United States, would have resulted in a lower sentencing range.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 8, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10657 Document: 00514716011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2018No. 17

- 10657

2 However, he concedes that his argument may be foreclosed by our recent decision in United State s v. Godoy , 890 F.3d 531, 536

- 41 (5th Cir. 2018)

. The district court must apply the version of the Sentencing Guidelines effective at the time of sentencing unless doing so would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. United S tates v. Rodarte

Vasquez , 488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007); see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a), (b)(1). “Although the sentencing guidelines are now advisory, [an ex post facto] violation occurs when the application of the Guidelines in effect at sentencing results in a harsher penalty than would application of the Guidelines in effect when the offense was committed.” United States v. Myers , 772 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Rodriguez

- Lozano did not argue in the district court that application of the 2016 Guidelines was an ex post facto violation, review of this issue is limited to plain error. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Though Rodriguez

- Lozano’s prior burglary conviction no lon ger qualifies as a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G § 2L1.2 (b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015), see United States v. Herrold , 883 F.3d 517, 520

- 23, 539

- 41 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc), petitions for cert. filed (Apr. 18, 2018) (No. 17

- 1445) and (May 21, 2018) (No. 17

- 9127), it qualifies as an aggravated felony for purposes of § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) (2015), s ee Godoy , 890 F.3d at 536

- 41. In the instant case, the G uidelines range is the same under either the 2015 or the 2016 Guidelines. Thus, there was no Ex Post Facto vi olation in the application of the 2016 Guidelines and no plain error. See Godoy , 890 F.3d at 541; Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-10657 Document: 00514716011 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2018
#### GREEN TREE SERVICING, L.L.C.; Walter Investment Management Corporation; Best Insurors, Incorporated; Mid State Capital, L.L.C.; Mid State Trust II; Mid State Trust III; Mid State Trust IV; Mid State Trust V; Mid State Trust VI; Mid State Trust VII; Mid State Trust VIII; Mid State Trust IX; Mid State Trust X; Mid State Trust XI; Wilmington Trust Company; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2004-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital *384Corporation 2005-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Corporation 2006-1 Trust; Mid-State Capital Trust 2010-1, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Cassandra R. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-60106 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 14, 2017

Kaytie Michelle Pickett, Esq., Andrew Scott Harris, Adam Stone, Jones Walker, L.L.P., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees

Mitchell Dee Thomas, Esq., Logan & Mayo, P.A., Newton, MS, Peter Emmanuel Ferraro, Ferraro Law Firm, Austin, TX, Jeffery P. Reynolds, Esq., Senior Attorney, Jeffery P. Reynolds, P.A., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction based upon binding precedent in a virtually identical case. *Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C. v. Charles,*872 F.3d 637 (5th Cir. 2017).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.218



$1,078,000.00                                                 New York, New York
                                                              April 22, 2002


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Wilshire Technologies, Inc. a California
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Borrower"), hereby unconditionally
PROMISES TO PAY to the order to TRILON DOMINION PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("Lender"), at 245 Park Avenue, 28th Floor, New York,
NY 10167, or at such other place as the holder of this Demand Note may designate
from time to time in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America
and in immediately available funds, the principal amount of One Million Seventy
Eight Thousand and 00/100, DOLLARS ($1,078,000), together with interest on the
unpaid principal amount of this Demand Note outstanding from time to time from
the date hereof, at a rate per annum equal to the Prime rate of interest plus
3.0%, or the highest rate permitted by law, whichever shall be less.

         The principal amount of the indebtedness evidenced hereby shall be
payable on demand. Interest thereon shall be paid when principal is paid from
the date hereof until such principal amount is paid in full at such interest
rate as specified above. Following failure to pay on demand, Borrower agrees to
pay interest on any overdue payment of principal at a rate per annum equal to
the stated interest rate plus 5%, or the highest rate permitted by law,
whichever shall be less. All interest calculations shall be computed on the
basis of a 360 day year.

         Demand, presentment, protest and notice of nonpayment and protest are
hereby waived by Borrower.

         Borrower shall have no right to make any off-set against or deduct from
any payment due under this Demand Note.

         Principal and interest may be prepaid at any time without penalty.

         This Demand Note may not be changed orally, but only by an agreement in
writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change is
sought.

         All covenants of Borrower in this Demand Note and all rights of the
holder under this Demand Note shall bind Borrower and its successors and
assigns, and all such covenants and rights shall inure to the benefit of the
holder of this Demand Note and its successors and assigns.

         This Demand Note has been delivered and accepted at New York, New York
and shall be interpreted, governed by, and construed in accordance with, the
laws of the State of New York.



                                        Wilshire Technologies, Inc.



                                        By: /S/ Kathleen Terry
                                            -----------------------------
                                        Name:  Kathleen E. Terry
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT FINK, Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Appellee. §

§ § No. 166, 2022 § § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 1710000460 (N) § § Submitted: August 9, 2022 Decided: August 26, 2022

ORDER It appears to the Court that the appellant, Robert Fink, filed this appeal from his sentence for a violation of probation (“VOP”). Fink subsequently filed a motion to modify the VOP sentence to remove the Level V portions of the sentence so that he could complete inpatient substance treatment outside of prison, which the Superior Court granted on July 21, 2022. In denying Fink’s motion for preparation of the VOP hearing transcript at State expense, the Superior Court noted the mooting effect of the sentence modification on Fink’s VOP appeal. On July 25, 2022, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Fink to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Fink has not responded to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period and therefore dismissal of this appeal is deemed to be unopposed.2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice