alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7212

GEORGE H. BRISBANE, SR.,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TIMOTHY STEWART,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:13-cv-02001-RDB)

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George H. Brisbane, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George H. Brisbane, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition as 

a successive but unauthorized motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2013) and dismissing it without prejudice for lack 

of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Brisbane 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LONE STAR SEC UR ITY & VIDEO, INC ., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C ITY OF LOS ANGELES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-56279 D.C . No. 2:03-c v-05346-AHM -R C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia A . Howa rd M atz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 5, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ENGLAND, C h ie f Distric t Judge . *** 

# FIL ED JUN 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble M orrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Lone Sta r Se c urity & Vide o (“ Lone Star” ) a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of this c a s e a fte r that c ourt de te rm ine d tha t Lone Star ha d not pre se rve d a num be r of its c la im s and tha

t no issue s re m a ine d to be re solve d.

I. The re is no a

ut hority for Lone Sta

r’ s c o nte ntion tha

t our re ve rsa l of the distric t c o urt’ s origina l sum m ary a djudic ation orde r, se e Lone Sta r Se c . & Vide o, Inc . v. C ity

of L.A., 584 F.3d 1232 (9th C i r. 2009), re se t the proc e e dings a n d e ffe c tive ly

nullifie d the Fina l Pre tria l C onfe re nc e Orde r (“ FPTC Orde r” ). The FPTC Orde r re m a ins in e ffe c t . If Lone Sta r wishe d to pre se rve c e rta in c la im s, it ha d a n a ffirm ative duty

to m ake tha

t inte ntion c le ar to the distric t c ourt. Se e Johnson v. M am

m oth R e c re ations, Inc ., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 1992). B e c a use Lone Sta

r fa ile d to c o m

ply with tha t duty , it wa ive d those c la im s not dispose d of by

the m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt a

n d not inc lude d

in the FPTC Orde r. II. Lone Sta r a lso did not se e k m odific ation of theorde r and doe s not a rgue , le t a lone de m onstra

te , tha t it would suffer m a

n i fe st injustic e if the FPTC Orde r is not m odifie d. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 16(e ); se e a lso Johnson, 975 F.2d a t 608. The distric t c o urt’ s de c ision re ga rding “ the pre t

ria l pha se of [this] litiga

tion” wa s 2c le arly

within its “

broa d disc re tion.” M ille r v. Sa fe c o TitleIns. C o., 758 F.2d 364, 369 (9th C i r. 1985) (c i ting FDIC v. Glic km an, 450 F.2d 416, 419 (9th C ir. 1971)). AFFIRM E D.

3
ESTATE OF Thalia DUKES v. CRAIGE

256P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Tony C. Thomas, For Thomas, Tony C.

H. Kenneth Stephens, II, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, For Craige, Lawrence S.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of June 2019 by Plaintiff for North Carolina Supreme Court to Assume Jurisdiction:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
The STATE, Petitioner, v. Steven OTTS, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001671 Opinion No. 27880

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard April 17, 2019 Filed April 24, 2019

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody J. Brown, Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry and Assistant Attorney General Susannah R. Cole, all of Columbia and Solicitor S.R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, for Petitioner

Appellate Defender Susan B. Hackett, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

We granted certiorari to review whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court and remanding for a new trial. *State v. Otts* , 424 S.C. 150, 817 S.E.2d 540 (Ct. App. 2018). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.

**DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.**

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
FAA-2010-0278 Contacts. With whom outside the FAAhasthis proposal been discussed?

Organization National Business Aircl'llft AssocilltiOU Regional Airline Association Aircrafl Owners & Pilots Association ATA Person Contacted IW CoW Da\'e Loiterer Robert Hackman Date



# /IJz.~b1 II/Z'l Response



# -
CHARLESTON.

#### State v. G. W. Horner.

Submitted November 1, 1922.

Decided November 14, 1922.

*Admission of Evidence Secured hy Alleged Unlawftil Search.*

A case controlled by the principles announced in *State*v. *Kees,*this day decided.

Error to Circuit Court, Berkeley County.

G. W. Horner was convicted of operating and maintaining a moonshine still, and he brings error.

*Affirmed.*

*A. C. Mclntire, Jno. H. Zirhle*and *H. H. Emmert,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. T. England,*Attorney General, *B. Dennis Steed,*Assistant Attorney General, and *W. Q. Brown,*State Prohibition Commissioner, for the State.

Ritz, Judge:

• The defendant was found guilty upon an indictment charging him with owning, operating and maintaining a moonshine still, and was sentenced to be confined in the penitentiary.

The sole assignment of error relied upon for reversal. of the judgment complained of is that the court below should not have permitted to be introduced in evidence certain articles secured by officer's in a search of the defendant’s prem*286ises, and to testify as to facts observed by them upon the occasion of such search, upon the ground that such search was unlawful. The'basis for the charge is that the search warrant issued by the justice was void, for the reason that it was issued upon a complaint made by the sheriff in the form prescribed by statute, except that the complainant stated that his belief was based upon information possessed by him. The complaint involved in this case is in exactly the same form as that involved in the case of *State*v. *Kees,*this day decided, and the principles announced in that case are controlling here, and justify the action of the court,below in admitting the evidence complained of.

The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                  235000
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        235000
<PP&E>                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          316000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   234000
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                               3128000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                            (3047000)  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            316000 
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         23000      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (23000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (23000)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            (23000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 535 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 535

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, as the ``Cesar E. Chavez 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 2005

   Mrs. Davis of California (for herself, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. 
  Honda, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Baca, Ms. Watson, Ms. Millender-
    McDonald, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Schiff, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
 California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, as the ``Cesar E. Chavez 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CESAR E. CHAVEZ POST OFFICE.

    (a) Redesignation.--The facility of the United States Postal 
Service located at 2777 Logan Avenue in San Diego, California, and 
known as the Southeastern Post Office, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Cesar E. Chavez Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cesar E. 
Chavez Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA PR 21-0005

—
1 IN RE THE MOTION OF JOSEPH A. CRONE FOR ADMISSION
TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

AUG
3 1 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprema Court State of Montana ORDER Joseph A. Crone has filed
amotion for adrnission
to the Bar of the State of Montana pursuant
to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission
on Motion. The Bar Admissions Administrator

of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission
on Character and Fitness has certified that Crone has provided the necessary docurnentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite

to admission
on motion under Rule V. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment
of any application fees and completion
of any other processing requirements

asset forth by the Bar Admissions Administrator, Joseph A. Crone maybe swornin to the practice of law in the State of Montana. Arrangements
for swearing
in rnay be rnade by contacting the office of the Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court. The Clerk is directed
to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State Bar of Montana. DATED thisZi day of August, 2021. (XC08/31/2021Case Number: PR 21-0005,zL.,4,./f..4t.iit#5:'2Justices
#### J. C. MARTIN CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 15068.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued May 3, 1965.

Decided May 26, 1965.

Rehearing Denied July 15, 1965.

Miles Warner, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Frank Gregory, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D. C. (James Mcl. Henderson, General Counsel, J. B. Truly, Asst. General Counsel, on the brief), for respondent.

Before KALODNER, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition to review and set aside an Order of the Federal Trade Commission at the close of an administrative proceeding upon a complaint charging petitioner with having engaged in unfair acts and practices in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 66 Stat. 632 (1952), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(a). The Order directed the petitioner and others to cease and desist from merchandising by means of a game of chance, gift enterprise or lottery scheme.

 On review of the record we are of the opinion that it presents substantial, and competent evidence to support the Commission’s findings and Order. We are further of the opinion that the former proceeding of the Commission against the petitioner and others, J. C. Martin Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission, 242 F.2d 530 (7 Cir. 1957), did not bar its prosecution of the instant proceeding by reason of *res adjudicata*or collateral estoppel.

For the reasons stated the Order of the Commission will be affirmed and enforced.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4742-4743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7243]

U.S. National Commission for UNESCO Notice of Closed 
Teleconference Meeting

    The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO will hold a conference call 
on Tuesday, February 15, 2011, beginning at 1 p.m. Eastern Time. The 
teleconference meeting will be closed to

[[Page 4743]]

the public to allow the Commission to discuss applications for the 
UNESCO Young Professionals Program. This call will be closed pursuant 
to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6) because it will involve discussions of information of a 
personal and financial nature regarding the relative merits of 
individual applicants where disclosure would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of privacy.
    For more information contact Elizabeth Kanick, Executive Director 
of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Washington, DC 20037. 
Telephone: (202) 663-0026; Fax: (202) 663-0035; E-mail: 
DCUNESCO@state.gov.

    Dated: January 14, 2011.
Elizabeth Kanick,
Executive Director, U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2011-1653 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
```
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-50932 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Adrian Nicolas Mendoza-Valles, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:20-CR-139-1 

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Adrian Nicolas Mendoza-Valles appeals his guilty plea conviction for 

illegal reentry into the United States after a prior removal, which followed 

the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Mendoza-Valles contends, citing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 6, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-50932 Document: 00515851801 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2021
No. 20-50932 

2 

that his prior removal does not satisfy the removal element of § 1326 because 

the notice to appear underlying that removal did not provide the date and 

time of the removal hearing. 

In United States v. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490, 497–98 (5th Cir. 

2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2769 (2020), we relied on Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 

930 F.3d 684, 688–89 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2718 (2020), to 

conclude that (1) a notice to appear that lacked the date and time of the 

removal hearing was not defective, (2) any defect was cured by the 

subsequent service of a notice of hearing, and (3) the purported defect was 

not jurisdictional. Additionally, we held that the defendant could not 

collaterally attack the notice to appear without first exhausting administrative 

remedies. Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d at 498. Conceding that Pedroza-Rocha

and Pierre-Paul foreclose his claim, Mendoza-Valles raises it to preserve it for 

further review. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, which is proper if “the position of one of the parties is clearly 

right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the 

outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 

(5th Cir. 1969). Because Mendoza-Valles correctly concedes that his claim 

is foreclosed by Pierre-Paul and Pedroza-Rocha, the motion for summary 

affirmance is GRANTED and the Government’s alternative motion for an 

extension of time to file a brief is DENIED AS MOOT. The judgment of 

the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-50932 Document: 00515851801 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2021
Karen NIEDBALSKI, n/k/a Lukas, Respondent, v. Richard NIEDBALSKI, Appellant.

No. ED 105163

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: December 26, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Susan M. Hais, Dzenana Delic, 222 S. Central Ave., Ste. 600, Clayton, MO 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: Cynthia M. Howlett, 7711 Bonhomme Ave., Ste. 815, Clayton, MO 63105, Lawrence G. Gillespie, 120 South Central Ave., Ste. 650, Clayton, MO 63105.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Richard Niedbalski appeals the judgment granting in part and denying in part his motion to quash garnishments filed by Karen Niedbalski, n/k/a Lukas. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision.

*410The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
No. 09-8956.

#### Joseph Barragan Campa, Petitioner v. Texas.

559 U.S. 1052, 130 S. Ct. 2348,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3056.

176 L. Ed. 2d 567,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, denied.
Exhibit 23


              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



We have issued our report dated August 3, 1999,  accompanying  the  consolidated
financial  statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Vasomedical,
Inc.  and  Subsidiary  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31,  1999.  We
hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  of  said  report  in the
Registration  Statements of Vasomedical,  Inc. and Subsidiary on Forms S-3 (File
No. 333-60341, effective December 28, 1998, File No. 333-33319, effective August
21, 1997, and File No. 33-62329,  effective September 18, 1995) and on Forms S-8
(File No.  333-60471,  effective August 3, 1998, File No.  333-11579,  effective
September 6, 1996, File No. 333-11581, effective September 6, 1996, and File No.
333-11583, effective September 6, 1996).

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Melville, New York
August 16, 1999
```

[Federal Register: March 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 52)]
[Notices]               
[Page 13135]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18mr10-81]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on 
an as needed basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ 
support. Individual members of the Panel do not attend regularly-
scheduled meetings and do not serve for fixed terms or a long period of 
time. Rather, they are asked to participate in particular review 
meetings which require their type of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the Medical Liability and Safety 
Demonstration Projects (R18) applications are to be reviewed and 
discussed at this meeting. These discussions are likely to reveal 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure 
under the above-cited statutes.

    SEP Meeting on: Medical Liability and Safety Demonstration 
Projects (R18).
    Date: March 31-April 1, 2010 (Open on March 31 from 8 a.m. to 
8:15 a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Doubletree Bethesda Hotel & Executive Meeting Center, 
8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Conference Room TBD, Bethesda, Maryland 
20852.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, 
Telephone (301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as 
priorities dictate.
    This notice is published less than 15 days in advance of the 
meeting date due to logistical difficulties.

    Dated: March 8, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-5698 Filed 3-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
```