alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LONNIE GLEN SCHMIDT, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. § NO. 3-05-CV-1449-P 

§ 

DAN JOSLIN, Warden, §

FCI-Seagoville, §

§

Respondent. §

ORDER

After conducting a review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), I am of the opinion that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are hereby accepted as the Findings of the Court. 

SO ORDERED this 11 day of August 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01449-P Document 4 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 36
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 89 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 89

To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to secure medical opinions 
for veterans with service-connected disabilities who die from COVID-19 
  to determine whether their service-connected disabilities were the 
   principal or contributory causes of death, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2021

  Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mr. Tillis, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Boozman, Mr. 
 Blumenthal, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Coons) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to secure medical opinions 
for veterans with service-connected disabilities who die from COVID-19 
  to determine whether their service-connected disabilities were the 
   principal or contributory causes of death, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Ensuring Survivor Benefits During 
COVID-19 Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAL OPINIONS FOR CERTAIN VETERANS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED 
              DISABILITIES WHO DIE OF COVID-19.

    In any case in which a veteran with one or more service-connected 
disabilities dies, the death certificate identifies Coronavirus Disease 
2019 (COVID-19) as the principal or contributory cause of death, the 
death certificate does not clearly identify any of the service-
connected disabilities as the principal or contributory cause of death, 
and a claim for benefits is filed with respect to the veteran under 
chapter 13 of title 38, Unites States Code, the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs shall secure a medical opinion to determine if a service-
connected disability was the principal or contributory cause of death.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7132

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THOMAS TYRONE NORMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cr-00983-HMH-1; 7:14-cv-02775-HMH)

Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Tyrone Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, 

III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Tyrone Norman seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion, which the district court treated as successive and 

unauthorized. 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 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 (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 Norman has not made the requisite showing.*

 Accordingly, we 

 * Although the district court granted Norman’s first § 2255 

motion and ordered that Norman be resentenced, in this habeas 

motion, Norman only raises issues pertaining to his convictions. 

(Continued)
3

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

 

Norman could have, but did not, raise the issues he seeks to 

raise in this § 2255 motion in his previous § 2255 motion. Cf.

United States v. Hairston, 754 F.3d 258, 262 (4th Cir. 2010) 

(§ 2255 motion not successive where claims did not exist at time 

of first § 2255 motion); In re Taylor, 171 F.3d 185, 187-88 (4th 

Cir. 1999) (finding § 2255 motion not successive where 

petitioner sought to raise only those issues that originated at 

the time of his resentencing, after his first § 2255 motion was 

granted).
----

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the    Report. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | DECEMBER      16, 2008 |                                            |   |
|--------|------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                   |                                            |   |
|   |                   | /s/      MICHAEL GOLDBERG                       |   |
|   |                   | MICHAEL      GOLDBERG                           |   |
|   |                   | ACTING      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER             |   |
|   |                   | (PRINCIPAL      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL |
|   |                   |  FINANCIAL      AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)    |
William WALLACE, Appellant, v. FLORIDA COMMISSION ON OFFENDER REVIEW, Appellee.

No. 1D18-5179

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 12, 2019

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 11 (Friday, January 17, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 6045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 570-1]

Delegation of Authority--Authorities of the Assistant Secretary 
for Educational and Cultural Affairs

ACTION: Delegation of Authority.

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

SUMMARY: The State Department is publishing a Delegation of Authority 
signed by the Secretary of State on January 10, 2025.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State, 
signed the following ``Delegation of Authority--Authorities of the 
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs on January 10, 
2025. The State Department maintains the original document.
    (Begin text.)
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of State by the 
laws of the United States, including section 1(a)(4) of the State 
Department Basic Authorities Act (22 U.S.C. 2651a(a)(4)), I hereby 
delegate to Rafik Mansour, to the extent authorized by law, all 
authorities vested in or delegated to the Assistant Secretary for 
Educational and Cultural Affairs by any act, order, determination, 
delegation of authority, regulation, or executive order, now or 
hereafter issued.
    The Secretary, either Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary for 
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, and the Under Secretary for 
Management may exercise any function or authority delegated herein. 
This delegation of authority does not modify any other delegation of 
authority currently in effect.
    This delegation will take effect on January 17, 2025, and will 
expire, unless sooner revoked, upon the entry upon duty of a confirmed 
or designated Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
and shall be published in the Federal Register.
    (End text.)

Zachary A. Parker,
Director, Office of Organizational Policy, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2025-01205 Filed 1-16-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-93665), Form S-4 (Nos. 333-81201 and 333-93649)
and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-41749, 333-41751, 333-58651, 333-60537, 333-69421,
333-78311, 333-93649, 333-35330, 333-35334 and 333-35418) of Encompass Services
Corporation of our report dated February 12, 2000, relating to the financial
statements of Encompass Services Corporation, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
------------------------------------

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 26, 2001
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 4, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10464

Summary Calendar

 

GERALD N. LEE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE;

S. DAYLASATOS, Assistant Warden; 

SERGEANT SHAGEL, Unit Grievance Coordinator;

DR. VAHORA, Medical Doctor; CAPTAIN FRYE, 

Temporary Unit Grievance Coordinator; OFFICER

LOPEZ, Corrections Officer; LIEUTENANT ORTEZ;

CAPTAIN HARLIN; WAYNE SCOTT, Director,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:99-CV-68-BG

- - - - - - - - - -

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald N. Lee, Texas prisoner no. 784007, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for

failure to protect. The district court held that Lee had not

exhausted his administrative remedies. Lee concedes that he did

not file a step two grievance but argues that he should be
No. 02-10464 

-2-

excused from this requirement because the denial of his step one

grievance indicated that the grievance procedure should not be

used to address his safety concerns. Lee also asserts that he

should not be bound by case law regarding exhaustion that was

issued after he filed his step one grievance. 

At the time that Lee filed his step one grievance, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) provided that "[n]o action shall be brought with

respect to prison conditions under section 1983 . . . by a

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional

facility until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted." Thus, exhaustion was mandatory, “irrespective of the

forms of relief sought and offered through administrative

avenues.” Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739, 741 n.6 (2001). 

Lee raised two issues in his step one grievance. The response to

this grievance did not address his safety concerns. Therefore,

Lee should have filed a step two grievance to exhaust his

administrative remedies. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516

(2002); Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d 357, 358 (5th Cir.

2001). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
| a.   | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b.   | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE:      May 20,      2009                   /s/ ARTHUR P. BOLLON,      PH.D._______________________________________                                                      ARTHUR      P. BOLLON, PH.D.                                                     CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER                                           (PRINCIPAL      EXECUTIVE OFFICER) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LOUISE RHODES, §

§

Plaintiff, §

vs. § No. 3:05-CV-2402-K

§ ECF

U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, §

et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any

objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District

Judge is of the opinion that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are

correct and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court.

For the reasons stated in the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, the

Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (doc. 36) filed by Defendant Office of Special

Counsel (OSC) and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for relief (doc. 44). Accordingly, OSC

is dismissed from this action. Plaintiff’s Objection to the Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation, are OVERRULED.
2

The Clerk is DIRECTED to re-issue summons for Defendant Thomas

Stanton and have the U.S. Marshal Serve him at the following address: Thomas

R. Stanton, Legal Aid of North West Texas, 114 W. Louisiana Street, McKinney,

Texas 75069.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 3 day of June, 2008. rd

 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[Cite as State v. Williams , 2023

- Ohio

- 186.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

MADISON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO

, Appellee,

- vs
-

J A JUAN D. WILLIAMS

, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2021

- 11

- 021

D E C I S I O N 1/23/2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI20200148

Nicholas A. Adkins, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel Price, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Culp, Parsons, and Murray LLC, and Joshua W. Beasley, for appe llant.

Per Curiam

. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal filed by

appellant, Jajuan D. Williams , the transcript of the docke t and journal entries, the tran script
of proceedings and original papers from the Madison County Court of Common Pleas, and

upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel.

{¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1 967)

, which (1) indicates that a careful review ofMadison CA2021

- 11

- 021

the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court
prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated;

(2) lists two potential err ors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87
S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently t o determine

whether the proceed ings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of

appellant's consti tutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for
appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant.

{¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having
been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to
appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant

requesting to withdra w as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason

that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., HENDRICKSON and BYRNE

, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Jump'n Jax, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the year ending June 30, 2005,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  James T. Wheeler,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certifies to the best of his knowledge,
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 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 result of operations of the
     Company.


/s/   JAMES T. WHEELER
---------------------------------
James T. Wheeler
Chief Executive Officer
August 15, 2005


     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00205-CV

In re Bobby Oxford, Sr.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM RUNNELS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Bobby Oxford, Sr., an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus directed to John H. Best, the District 

Attorney of Runnels County, Texas. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.1.

This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over a district attorney. See 

In re Smith, 03-19-00734-CV, 2019 WL 6121405, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 19, 2019, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.); Roberts v. Lowry, 742 S.W.2d 747, 748 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] 1987, no writ). By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against 

“a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of 

appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. 

Gov't Code § 22.221. Thus, the District Attorney of Runnels County is not a party against whom 

we may issue a writ of mandamus unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Relator has not 
2

demonstrated that our jurisdiction is implicated here. We have no jurisdiction to grant relator the 

relief he seeks.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly

Filed: May 19, 2021
Leon MCGHEE v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-16-1244

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 8
                                                                       ---------


                      COMMENTS BY AUDITORS FOR U.S. READERS
                      ON CANADA-U.S. REPORTING DIFFERENCES


In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of
an explanatory paragraph, following the opinion paragraph, when there is a
change in accounting principles that has a material effect on the comparability
of the Company's consolidated financial statements, such as the change described
in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements. Our report to the
shareholders dated January 28, 2005 is expressed in accordance with Canadian
reporting standards which do not require a reference to such a change in
accounting principles in the auditor's report when the change is properly
accounted for and adequately disclosed in the consolidated financial statements.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
Chartered Accountants


January 28, 2005
Montreal, Canada
Larry BIZE, Sr. and Michelle R. Bize v. Malcolm LARVADAIN, et al.

NO. 2019-C-0419

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

*578Denied.