alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-5115

_____________________________

HECTOR ADOLFO DEMONTALVO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Jennie Kinsey, Judge.

October 17, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Hector Adolfo DeMontalvo, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 652 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to reauthorize the State infrastructure 

bank program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2015 

Mr. HANNA (for himself and Ms. HAHN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to reauthorize the 

State infrastructure bank program. 

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 ‘‘State Transportation 

5 and Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act (STIFIA)’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK PROGRAM. 

7 Section 610 of title 23, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (d)— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 652 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking subpara2 graph (A) and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(A) 15 percent of the funds apportioned 

4 to the State for each of fiscal years 2016 

5 through 2020 under each of sections 104(b)(1) 

6 and 104(b)(2); and’’; 

7 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘2005 

8 through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2016 through 

9 2020’’; 

10 (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘2005 

11 through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2016 through 

12 2020’’; and 

13 (D) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘section 

14 133(d)(3)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 133(d)(4)’’; 

15 and 

16 (2) in subsection (k), by striking ‘‘2005 through 

17 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘2016 through 2020’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Nathaniel M. COSTLEY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christina STEINER; City of Westminster; Westminster City Police Department; Thomas Kowalczyk, Officer; Patricia Parks, Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1128

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Nathaniel M. Costley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan H. Silverberg, SUMMERFIELD, WILLEN, SILVERBERG & LIMSKY LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Ernest I. Cornbrooks, IV, KARPINSKI, COLARE-SI *&*KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel M. Costley, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his complaint in which he asserted claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and state law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Costley v. Steiner,*No. 1:16-cv-01447-GLR (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2017 & Jan. 26, 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*
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 18216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7447]

[[Page 18216]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday April 6, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered: 
    Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the event that the times 
or dates of these or any future meetings change, an announcement of the 
change, along with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted 
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-7447 Filed 3-23-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
| 1. | Party A shall provide necessary household electrical appliance, furniture, and kitchen ware to Party B for use. The monthly rental is RMB1200, which may be adjusted based on the market price). |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The expense in associated with property management, TV, phone bills, water and electricity etc. shall be paid by Party B as per the actual cost. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Method of payment: Party B transfers the aforesaid payment to Party A’s account. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | In the period of lease term, Party B shall comply with related law, manage the sanitation, and prevent the leasehold from fire and thieves. If Party B fails to comply, any loss caused herein shall be undertaken by Party B and Party A has the right to take back the property and terminate this agreement. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | Under the terms of this agreement, Party B shall deposit RMB1000 in Party A’s account as rental bond. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 6. | If either party requests to terminate this agreement, he should notify the other party prior to a month. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 7. | The lease term is one year dated from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2011. The agreement shall be renewal and signed if both parties agree to continue the lease. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6465 

To authorize the incorporation of water quality improvement partnership 

programs into Federal Water Pollution Control Act NPDES permit programs, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2016 

Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize the incorporation of water quality improvement 

partnership programs into Federal Water Pollution Control Act NPDES permit programs, 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. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PARTNER4 SHIPS. 

5 (a) NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMI6 NATION SYSTEM.—Section 402 of the Federal Water Pol7 lution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding 

8 at the end the following: 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6465 IH

1 ‘‘(s) WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PARTNER2 SHIPS.—A permit program administered under this sec3 tion may incorporate a water quality improvement part4 nership program that, consistent with the requirements of 

5 this Act, encourages investment by publicly owned treat6 ment works and municipal separate storm sewer systems 

7 in watershed-based projects to improve water quality.’’. 

8 (b) WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTA9 TION PLANS.—Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution 

10 Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1313) is amended by adding at 

11 the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(j) WATERSHED-BASED RESTORATION WORK.— 

13 Water quality improvement partnerships established pur14 suant to section 402(s) may be used by publicly owned 

15 treatment works and municipal separate storm sewer sys16 tems to attain and maintain water quality standards, con17 sistent with the requirements of this Act.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Darryl Lamont JEFFERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7086

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Darryl Lamont Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Lamont Jefferson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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.

*146We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jefferson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jefferson’s motion for a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
**Exhibit 15.1****REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**To the Board of Directors and Stockholders ofParty City CorporationRockaway, New Jersey     We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balancesheets of Party City Corporation as of October 1, 2005 andOctober 2, 2004, and the related condensed consolidatedstatements of operations and cash flows for the quarter endedOctober 1, 2005 and October 2, 2004. These interimfinancial statements are the responsibility of theCompany’s management.     We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards of thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Areview of interim financial information consists principally ofapplying analytical procedures and making inquiries of personsresponsible for financial and accounting matters. It issubstantially less in scope than an audit conducted inaccordance with auditing standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective ofwhich is the expression of an opinion regarding the financialstatements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express suchan opinion.     Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any materialmodifications that should be made to such condensed consolidatedfinancial statements for them to be in conformity withaccounting principles generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica.     We have previously audited, in accordance with standards of thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), theconsolidated balance sheet of Party City Corporation as ofJuly 2, 2005, and the related consolidated statements ofincome, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the yearthen ended (not presented herein); and in our report datedSeptember 15, 2005, we expressed an unqualified opinion onthose consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, theinformation set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidatedbalance sheet as of July 2, 2005 is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheetfrom which it has been derived.     As discussed in Note 4, effective July 3, 2005 theCompany adopted the provisions of Statements of FinancialAccounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123(R),“Share-Based Payment.” In addition, as discussed inNote 2, on September 27, 2005, the Company announcedthat a definitive agreement was signed for the sale of theCompany.     DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPNew York, New YorkNovember 10, 2005
[LETTERHEAD OF SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC.]



GMAC-RFC
2255 N. Ontario Street, Ste 400
Burbank, CA  91504
Attention: Compliance Officer


        Re: Annual Compliance Statement for RALI SERIES 2006-QS18 TRUST

        In connection  with the loans serviced by SunTrust  Mortgage,  Inc. (the
"Company")  pursuant to the Company's Servicing  Agreement(s)/Purchase  and Sale
Agreement(s)  with  GMAC-RFC  and  any  applicable  Reconstitution  Agreement(s)
(together,  the "Transaction  Agreements"),  I, the undersigned officer,  hereby
certify the following as of December 31, 2006:

(i)  The Company  conducted a review of its  activities  during the  immediately
     preceding  calendar  year  (or  applicable  portion  thereof)  and  of  its
     performance  under the Transaction  Agreements  during such period has been
     made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the  best  of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Company  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations  under the  Transaction  Agreements in all
     material  respects  throughout  such calendar year (or  applicable  portion
     thereof),  except  that as of  January 1, 2006,  the  Company  did not have
     procedures for monitoring  compliance with requirements as specified in the
     applicable transaction agreements governing SEC Regulation AB transactions.
     To address the absence of such  procedures,  the Company's  management  has
     undertaken and completed the following  actions:  (a) completed a review of
     each  Transaction  Agreement and identified if there was specific  language
     affecting any of the Servicing  Criteria  outlined in Section 1122;  (b) to
     the degree that the Transaction  Agreements  required  specific  procedures
     related to the servicing  criteria,  the Company's  Reference Point Library
     (where all  policies and  procedures  are  maintained)  was updated to this
     effect;  (c)  for  each  pool,  a  Control  Matrix  was  completed  (and is
     maintained on a current basis)  identifying  which  Transaction  Agreements
     control each pool;  and (d)  established a monthly review process where the
     Company's  managers  review key factors of  performance  under  Transaction
     Agreements and respond to a questionnaire  indicating  compliance with such
     factors.



        IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I do hereby  certify the  foregoing as of the date
hereof.

        /s/ John R. Purcell, Jr.

        John R. Purcell, Jr.
        Senior Vice President - Manager, Servicing Division

        Date:  February 27, 2007
Order entered March 2 1 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01358
- CV GREGORY VON LEE, Appellant

V.
DALLAS AREA RAPID TR ANSIT , Appellee On Appeal from the Cou nty Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 16
- 03665
- A



### O RDER By letter dated March 11, 2019 , the Court informed appellant his brief was deficient and instructed him to file, by March 21, 2019 , an amended brief correcting the note d deficiencies. On March 20, 2019, appellant filed both an amended brief and a motion requesting a fourteen

day extension of time to file an amended brief. The amended brief fails to correct the deficiencies noted in the March 11 letter. In his motion, appellant explains that he is seeking legal help with his brief. We GRANT the motion as follows. We STRIKE the amended brief. We ORDER appellant to file, by April 12, 2019 , an amended brief correcting the deficiencies noted in this Court’s March 11 lett er. We caution appellant that failure to comply may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GREG DUDLEY,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-17-00125-CR

Appeal from the

120th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20150D02228)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State’s third motion for extension of time within which to file the

brief until July 26, 2018. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

THE STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza, the State’s attorney, prepare the 

State’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 26, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2018.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
#### Adrienne L. MCADORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VAIL TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1725

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: December 6, 2017

Adrienne L. McAdory, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Benson Young, KUTAK ROCK, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*192PER CURIAM:

Adrienne L. McAdory appeals the district court’s order granting Vail Technologies’ bill of costs. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *McAdory v. Vail Technologies,*No. 1:16-cv-00886-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. June 13, 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sal Nie AYUN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7397

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 14, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Brian Jackson Beck, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Steven Randall Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorneys, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sal Nie Ayun seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifí-cate 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 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 Ayun 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*
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00198 - CR

KEVIN WADE NOONKESTE R APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appel lant Kevin Wade Noonkester was convicted of sexual assault of a
child , and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years ’ confinement on April 18, 201 1

. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, so his notice of appeal was
due May 18, 2011

. See Tex

. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) (providing that notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of sentencing in the absence of a timely

-

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

filed motion for new trial). He did not file his notice of appeal until May 31 , 201 1 ; thus, it was untimely. Accordingly, we informed Appellant by letter on June 3 , 201 1 , that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless Appellant or any party filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before June 13 , 201 1

. Appellant responded by filing a motion for extens ion of time to file his notice of appeal, but the motion for extension was filed on June 6, 2011, more than fifteen days after his notice of appeal was due. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3 (requiring party seeking to extend time to file notice of appeal to file both a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal within fifteen days of the day the notice of appeal was due). A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is essential to vest this court with jurisd iction. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for extension of time, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S .W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals may grant Appellant an out

- of

-

2 In his motion for extension of time, Appellant conten ds that his notice of appeal was timely because it was filed within thirty days of the trial court’s May 20, 2011 nunc pro tunc judgment, but a nunc pro tunc judgment does not extend the time for filing under rule 26.2. See Velazquez v. State , No. 05

- 06

- 0 0781

- CR, 2007 WL 1041126, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Apr. 9, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Rodarte v. State , 860 S.W.2d 108, 109 & n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)).3

time appeal. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 ( West Supp. 2010 ); Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 525 n.8; Cotton v. State , No. 02

- 10

- 00001

- CR, 201 0 WL 520814, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Feb. 11, 2010, pet. ref ’ d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Because Appellant ’ s notice of appeal and motion for extension to file notice of appeal were untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of ju risdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM
PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: June 30, 2011