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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6527

MICHAEL MCLEAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

OFFICER PHILMON; Q. PULLEN, Officer; B.

HARRIS, Officer; JAMES BRODY, Officer; OFFICER

WIGGINS; OFFICER PITTMAN; OFFICER ROOKS; JAMES

GILMORE, Inmate; KEITH ZEBULON, Inmate; BOBBIE

FORTHOUSE, Inmate; JAMES NEWKIRK, Inmate;

INMATE RAMSUR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.

(CA-97-108-5-BR)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael McLean, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A

(West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

McLean v. Philmon, No. CA-97-108-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 1997). The

motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 829 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 829

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the TRICARE program 
 for certain members of the Retired Reserve of the reserve components.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2021

Mr. Portman (for himself and Ms. Warren) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the TRICARE program 
 for certain members of the Retired Reserve of the reserve components.

    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 ``TRICARE Fairness for National Guard 
and Reserve Retirees Act''.

SEC. 2. TRICARE FOR MEMBERS OF THE RETIRED RESERVE.

    (a) Adjustment of Eligibility.--Paragraph (2) of section 1074(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member or former member 
eligible for retired pay for non-regular service under chapter 1223 of 
this title who is under 60 years of age unless such member or former 
member is in receipt of such pay (or would be in receipt of such pay 
but for section 5304 or 5305 of title 38).''.
    (b) TRICARE Retired Reserve.--Section 1076e(a) of title 10, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``who is qualified for a 
        non-regular retirement at age 60 under chapter 1223 of this 
        title, but is not age 60,'' and inserting ``described in 
        paragraph (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(3) A member of the Retired Reserve of a reserve component of the 
armed forces is described in this paragraph if the member--
            ``(A) is qualified for a non-regular retirement at age 60 
        under chapter 1223 of this title;
            ``(B) is not age 60; and
            ``(C) is not in receipt of retired pay under such chapter, 
        unless the member is not in receipt of such retired pay due to 
        the application of section 5304 or 5305 of title 38.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect January 1, 2022.
                                 <all>
```
J.C.S. v. STATE

CR-15-1393

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
##### 



COMSTOCK HOMEBUILDING COMPANIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
  EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc.;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 period 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
    /s/ Christopher ClementeChristopher Clemente
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1508

WILLIAM E. SCOTT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CARTER ROAG COAL COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00050-JPB-MJA)

Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William E. Scott, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Curtis Dean, Joseph Umberto Leonoro, 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William E. Scott, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Carter Roag 

Coal Company’s motion to dismiss Scott’s religious discrimination claims, brought 

pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 

2000e-17. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was 

not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its dismissal order on February 27, 2020. Scott filed the 

notice of appeal on April 29, 2020. Because Scott failed to file a timely notice of appeal 

or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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 32.1

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q of
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2009, I, James F. Roberts, Chief Executive Officer of Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | This Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Foundation Coal Holdings, Inc.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 7, 2009



/s/ JAMES F. ROBERTSJames F. RobertsChief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM FOOTE and ELIZABETH

FOOTE,

 Petitioners - Appellants,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-70668

Tax Ct. No. 12271-12

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

Tax Court

Submitted February 12, 2016** 

Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY,*** District Judge.

FILED

FEB 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Petitioners William and Elizabeth Foote appeal from the tax court’s

summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. The tax court held that the

Footes were not entitled to an award of administrative costs and litigation expenses

incurred during their audit and deficiency proceedings. We have jurisdiction under

26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We affirm.

The Footes were subject to auditing and deficiency proceedings from 1996

to 2011. The five actions against them were ultimately resolved through

stipulations entered by the tax court, none of which referenced administrative or

litigation costs. The Footes did not file a motion seeking an award of costs under

26 U.S.C. § 7430, nor did they move to vacate the decisions. See 26 C.F.R.

§ 301.7430-2(b)(2); Tax Court Rules 230-33.

As the Footes did not properly petition the tax court for administrative and

litigation costs before the stipulated decisions became final, their current action for

costs is barred by res judicata. See Gustafson v. Comm’r, 97 T.C. 85, 93 (1991);

see also W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189, 1192 (9th Cir. 1997)

(listing the requirements for res judicata to apply). The Footes’ request to the

Internal Revenue Service for administrative costs is immaterial, because a

prevailing taxpayer may only recover costs from the IRS if “[t]he underlying

substantive issues . . . are not, and have never been, before any court of the United

2
States.” § 301.7430-2(b)(1)(i). Here, the Footes’ liability was determined by the

tax court by way of stipulation. As such, any request for costs made to the IRS

was procedurally improper.

AFFIRMED.

3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6284

BUSTER A. YANCEY, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; TROY HOUSE; CAVALE COURT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-97-125-5-F(3))

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 1, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Buster A. Yancey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Larry D.

Hall, Durham, North Carolina; Robert Daniel Boyce, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Buster A. Yancey, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Yancey v. Bureau of

Prisons, No. CA-97-125-5-F(3) (E.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 1998). We deny

Yancey’s motion for a default judgment and dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Terrell Ray ROLAND v. STATE

CR-16-1223

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
Exhibit 13.1








PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with this Annual Report of Golden State Petro (IOM I-B) PLC (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tor Olav Troim, Principal Executive 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.




A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.






Date: June 18, 2010





/s/ Tor Olav Troim


Tor Olav Troim


Principal Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEROME THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:04-cr-00095-FL-1)

Submitted: January 19, 2021 Decided: January 22, 2021

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Thomas appeals the district court’s order granting a reduction of his 

sentence pursuant to his motion under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 

No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5122. Thomas argues that the district court should 

have reduced his term of supervised release as well. The district court did reduce Thomas’ 

supervised release as to his drug conviction but, because the term of supervised release as 

to Thomas’ firearms offense was unaffected by the First Step Act, the district court did not 

err. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Thomas, No. 7:04-cr-00095-FL-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2020). We deny Thomas’ motion 

for a reduced term of supervised release and 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
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3344

_____________________________

EUGENE SIMON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

February 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Eugene Simon, pro se, Appellant.
2

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Operations found on pages 3 and 4
of the Company's Form 10K for the year to date and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         138,826
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               250,711
<PP&E>                                       3,355,144
<DEPRECIATION>                               (949,291)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,745,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,062,185
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,683,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,745,817
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               937,851
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,207,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (308,734)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (308,734)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (308,734)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 5016

_____________________________
W ILLIE J. H UDSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. July 22, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , O STERHAUS , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Willie J. Hudson, pro se , Appellant

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General
, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Case 3:05-cv-00669-B Document 3 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 27
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Alan Finkelstein, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Innovative Card Technologies, Inc.


Dated: May 11, 2006             By: /s/ Alan Finkelstein
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    Alan Finkelstein
                                    Chief Executive Officer,
                                    President and Secretary


I, Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Innovative Card Technologies, Inc.


Dated: May 11, 2006         By: /s/ Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky
                                    Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided by Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Innovative Card Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Michael C. DEMARCO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-58

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 9 PageID 917
 

 Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 9 PageID 918
 

 Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 3 of 9 PageID 919
 

 Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 4 of 9 PageID 920
 

 Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 5 of 9 PageID 921
 

 Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 6 of 9 PageID 922
 

 Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 7 of 9 PageID 923
 

 Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 8 of 9 PageID 924
 

 Case 3:04-cv-01059-B Document 62 Filed 04/27/05 Page 9 of 9 PageID 925