alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tyrone HURT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and African Americans, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6138

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed December 14, 2017

D.C. No. 5:17-CV-00477-R (W.D. Oklahoma)

Tyrone Hurt, Pro Se

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Michael R. Murphy, Circuit Judge

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the adjudication 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.

Proceeding pro se, Tyrone Hurt appeals the district court’s dismissal of the complaint he filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice when Hurt failed to comply with the district court’s order to file a legible amended complaint clarifying the claims being asserted. Hurt’s appellate brief, like his complaint, is nearly illegible. It focuses on Hurt’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and contains no clear argument as to why the district court’s .judgment should be reversed.

Having reviewed the record and Hurt’s appellate filings, this court concludes Hurt’s appeal is “without merit in that it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact.” *Thompson v. Gibson,*289 F.3d 1218, 1222 (10th Cir. 2002). We, thus, dismiss the appeal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). *See Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury,*408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting § 1915 applies to all litigants seeking to proceed in forma pauperis). We also deny Hurt’s motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis and remind him of his responsibility to make immediate payment of any unpaid balance of the appellate filing fee.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 963 

To amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to modify the 

exemptions from certain disclosure requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2019 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ (for herself, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, and 

Mr. GREEN of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to 

modify the exemptions from certain disclosure requirements. 

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 ‘‘Home Loan Quality 

5 Transparency Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN DISCLOSURE REQUIRE7 MENTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 304 of the Home Mort9 gage Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2803) is amend10 ed— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 963 IH

1 (1) by striking subsection (i) and inserting the 

2 following: 

3 ‘‘(i) EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN DISCLOSURE RE4 QUIREMENTS.—The requirements of paragraphs (4), (5), 

5 and (6) of subsection (b) shall not apply with respect to 

6 any depository institution described in section 303(3)(A) 

7 that has total assets, as of the most recent full fiscal year 

8 of the institution, of $30,000,000 or less.’’; and 

9 (2) by striking subsection (o). 

10 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

11 Section 104 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, 

12 and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 115–174; 132 

13 Stat. 1301) is amended by striking subsection (b). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### PELZER, C., et al. v. DOC, et al.

309 CD 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/16/2017

Greene County Civil Division, No. 155 A.D of 2014

Affirmed
<PAGE>


                                  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 Resource America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Steven J. Kessler, 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 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.





                               /s/ Steven J. Kessler
                               ------------------------
                               Steven J. Kessler
                               Chief Financial Officer
                               January 28, 2004
#### S.W. v. DHS (Sealed)

347 CD 2017

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/25/2017

Department of Human Services, Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, [ XXX-XX-XXXX ]

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000819577
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XVII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         346,261
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               346,261
<PP&E>                                      16,220,841
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,174,817)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,392,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          233,744
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,158,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,392,285
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,353,593
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  529,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                824,479
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            824,479
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   824,479
<EPS-BASIC>                                      37.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    37.36



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6283]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-254-001]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Filing of Penalty Revenue 
Report

March 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 4, 1997, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG) tendered for filing a revised schedule to its report of penalty 
revenue collected during Periods of Daily Balancing (PODB), filed 
February 18, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-254-000.
    WNG states that it made a filing on February 18, 1997 to report the 
amount of penalty revenue collected pursuant to the provisions of 
Article 9.5 of the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff 
during Periods of Daily Balancing (PODB) occurring in January and 
February, 1996, and the proposed distribution of such revenue. WNG 
inadavetently omitted Western Resources, Inc. from the Delivery 
Operator Refund report. A revised Delivery Operator Refund report was 
filed.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service list maintained by the Commission in the docket 
referenced above and on all of WNG's jurisdictional customers and 
interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before March 14, 1997. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6283 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILIING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the "Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section,
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 of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial conditions and results of
          operations of the Company.


/s/ Kenneth M. Collins
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
February 18, 2003
EXHIBIT 99.1


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


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December
31, 2002, for PNM Resources, Inc. and Public Service Company of New Mexico
("Companies"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2003, ("Report"), I, Jeffry E. Sterba, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss. 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Companies.




Date:   March 18, 2003                 By:     /s/ Jeffrey E. Sterba
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Jeffry E. Sterba
                                               Chairman, President and
                                               Chief Executive Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 11067 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:13

- cr
- 00033

- ACC

- PRL

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus GREGORY A. LEAF,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Di strict of Florida

________________________ ( October 29, 2015 )
Before JORDAN , JILL PRYOR and BLACK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-11067 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 Page: 1 of 22 Darlene Calzone Barror, appointed counsel for Greg Leaf , ha s filed a motion
to withdraw on appeal , supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Ande rs 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 review of the entire
record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is
GRANTED , and the district court’s denial of Leaf’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
is AFFIRMED

.

Case: 15-11067 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2008 on Form 10-Q of Knickerbocker Capital Corp.;  2.           Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.           The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.           The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Nov. 19, 2009   /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Financial Officer
# C_2022424EN.01004501.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/45

---

Action brought on 16 September 2022 — EDPS v Parliament and Council

(Case T-578/22)

(2022/C 424/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (represented by: D. Nardi, T. Zerdick, A. Buchta and F. Coudert, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 74a and Article 74b of Regulation 2016/794 (1) as amended by Regulation 2022/991 (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 74a and Article 74b of Regulation 2016/794 (1) as amended by Regulation 2022/991 (2);

| — | condemn the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

condemn the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging violation of the independence and powers of the applicant as a supervisory authority because of the infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of non-retroactivity of legal acts. The applicant alleges infringement of Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 55 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (3) read in conjunction with Article 43(1) and (3)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2022/991.

The applicant claims that his standing to bring an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU is justified by the need to be able to dispose of a judicial remedy to defend his institutional prerogatives, in particular his independence as a supervisory authority under Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the institutional balance between the role of supervisory authorities and the role of the legislator.

Alternatively, he claims being directly and individually concerned by the contested provisions, which he has a clear and actual interest to have annulled.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968 (OJ 2016 L 135, p. 53).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2022/991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794, as regards Europol’s cooperation with private parties, the processing of personal data by Europol in support of criminal investigations, and Europol’s role in research and innovation (OJ 2022 L 169, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

---
Submitted February 28,

affirmed April 19, 2017

#### TRACEY E. BOGLE, *Petitioner-Appellant, v.*STATE OF OREGON, *Defendant-Respondent.*

Marion County Circuit Court

13C14935; A160042

395 P3d 643

Jed Peterson and O’Connor Weber LLP filed the opening brief for appellant. Tracey Bogle filed the supplemental brief *pro se.*

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Wollheim, Senior Judge.

*883PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The petition asserted a number of different claims for relief, some of which were alleged through petitioner’s appointed counsel, and others which were alleged *pro se.*The post-conviction court denied relief on the merits on the claims asserted through counsel, but declined to consider the *pro se*claims.

On appeal, petitioner has filed two briefs: one through counsel and one *pro se*supplemental brief. In the brief submitted through counsel, petitioner assigns error to the trial court’s refusal to consider petitioner’s *pro se*claims. Petitioner contends that, under *Church v. Gladden,*244 Or 308, 417 P2d 993 (1966), the post-conviction court was required to consider his *pro se*claims and make a discretionary decision whether to direct petitioner’s attorney to assert those claims. Petitioner further contends that the post-conviction court did not, in fact, make the required discretionary determination and, for that reason, reversal is required. In response, the state1 argues that *Johnson v. Premo,*355 Or 866, 333 P3d 288 (2014), demonstrates that petitioner’s argument is predicated on a misreading of *Church,*and it fails for that reason.

We agree with the state. In *Johnson,*the Supreme Court clarified that *“Church*says no more than this: If a post-conviction petitioner’s attorney fails to assert a ground for relief, the petitioner must bring that fact to the attention of the court to avoid the effect of ORS 138.550(3).” *Id.*at 877. As we understand *Johnson’s*clarification of *Church, Church*did not require the post-conviction court to respond to petitioner’s *pro se*claims by making the discretionary determination advocated by petitioner or to consider those claims on their merits. Rather, *Church*means simply that, to the extent the post-conviction court refused to consider those claims because they were not asserted through counsel, ORS 138.550(3) will not bar petitioner from pursuing them in a subsequent petition because he has followed *Church’s*directive by bringing those claims to the attention of the *884post-conviction court below in this proceeding. As a result, the post-conviction court committed no error in its disposition of petitioner’s *pro se*claims.

We reject without written discussion the additional claims of error asserted in petitioner’s *pro se*supplemental brief.

Affirmed.

1

 The state is the named defendant on the petition for post-conviction relief.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


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


I, Jacob Pollock, Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial officer of RVM
Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

       (1)    the Company's Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
              year ended March 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
              Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 for the periods presented therein.


                                          /s/ Jacob Pollock
                                          Chief Executive Officer/
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          November 12, 2002




                                       62