alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Zannie NEAL, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12-8733.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7543

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL D. PAHUTSKI,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00211-MR-1; 3:12-cv-00308-

MR)

Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 3, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Pahutski, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael D. Pahutski appeals the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and 

dismissing it on that basis. As we held in United States v. McRae, a certificate of 

appealability is not required in order for this court to address the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a “Rule 60(b) motion as an unauthorized successive 

habeas petition.” 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). Our review of the record confirms 

that Pahutski sought successive § 2255 relief, without authorization from this court, and 

we therefore hold that the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to 

consider the subject motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2012). Thus, we affirm the 

district court’s order and grant Pahutski leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

Additionally, we construe Pahutski’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an 

application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 

motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Pahutski’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, 

we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral 
3

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
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

NO. 2022 Kw 0450

DERRICK PIERRE JULY 5, 2022

In Re: Derrick Pierre, applying for supervisory writs, 18th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

Nos. 06- 97- 0846 & 06- 98- 0961. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. The records of the Clerk of Court of East

Baton Rouge Parish reflect that the district court is proceeding

toward disposition of relator' s application for postconviction

relief, as on May 19, 2022, the State of Louisiana was ordered

to file any procedural objections it may have and/ or an answer

to relator' s application. 

PMC

JEW

CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

C CA-nrsz,- S. 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
Gregory James RUSSELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1259

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 08, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
In re Robert HEXIMER, petitioner.

No. 12-9595.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 30, 2000 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             202
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,121
<PP&E>                                          22,614
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,275
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,947
<SALES>                                         16,862
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,862
<CGS>                                           12,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,615
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,615
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,615
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23


</TABLE>
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CASE NO. 3: 17-CV-00939-WHA 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Robert B. Ellis, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

300 North LaSalle Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Telephone: (312) 862-2000 

Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 

Email: rellis@kirkland.com 

Kevin K. Chang (SBN 292271) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

555 California Street 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 439-1400 

Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 

Email: kevin.chang@kirkland.com 

Attorneys for 

Stroz Friedberg, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO 

TRUCKING LLC, 

Defendants. 

 CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STROZ 

FRIEDBERG, LLC’S MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE 

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE (DKT. 670) 

Courtroom: 8 - 19th Floor 

Judge: Hon. William Alsup 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 730-1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 1 of 2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 

CASE NO. 3: 17-CV-00939-WHA 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Before this Court is Stroz Friedberg, LLC’s (“Stroz”) Motion for Relief from Nondispositive 

Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge Corley (“Motion”). The Court has considered the motion, and the 

arguments of counsel, and hereby grants Stroz’s Motion. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline set forth in Magistrate Judge Corley’s June 21, 

2017 Order Granting Motion to Compel Stroz Documents and Denying Motions to Quash (Dkt. 670) 

to complete the production of documents responsive to Request Nos. 11, 13-15, 18, and 29, and to 

produce a privilege log, is extended to thirty (30) days after the parties reach an agreement on date 

limitations, keyword search parameters, and a production protocol, and the Order becomes effective 

after any appeals. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________________, 2017 ________________________________ 

 Hon. William Alsup 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 730-1 Filed 06/23/17 Page 2 of 2
올바르게 취급하기

“싱크대를 씻고 헹구고 위생 

처리를 하지 않았습니다.” 

“싱크대를 씻고 헹구고 위생 처

리를 했습니다.” 

어디서든 사람의 건강을 보호하십시오. 도구를 사용난 후에는 항상 씻고 헹구고 위생 처리를 하십시오
Sandra L. DUPUY v. Fred A. MILLER, D.C. Individually änd d/b/a Doctors Chiropractic and Physical Therapy Group and/or The Back Pain Center, Fred A. Miller, D.C., L.L.C., Individually and d/b/a Doctors Chiropractic and Physical Therapy Group and/or The Back Pain Center, Mark S. Richard, D.C. Individually and d/b/a Doctors Chiropractic and Physical Therapy Group and/or The Back Pain Center and ABC Insurance Company

NO. 2019-CC-0433

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2019

Denied.
Carmen GRICCO, petitioner, v. Juan CASTILLO, Warden.

No. 12-9560.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
EX-4.11






EXHIBIT 4.11




February 13, 2009




Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549




Re: Brookfield Homes Corporation




Ladies and Gentlemen:



In accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Brookfield Homes Corporation (the
“Registrant”) has not filed herewith any instrument with respect to long-term debt not being
registered where the total number of securities authorized thereunder does not exceed ten percent
(10%) of the total assets of the Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The
Registrant hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any such agreement to the Securities and Exchange
Commission upon request.




	 	 	 
	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATION
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ CRAIG J. LAURIE
 


	 	 
	Craig J. Laurie
	 	 
	Chief Financial Officer
EATON CORPORATION, petitioner, v. ZF MERITOR LLC, et al.

No. 12-1045.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

*2026Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 16

REDACTED VERSION OF

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 25-16 Filed 02/09/17 Page 1 of 1
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

Exhibit-32.1 -- Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

I am the Chief Executive Officer of Total Nutraceutical Solutions, a Nevada
corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this certificate in connection
with the Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2008 and
filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-K").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  October 27, 2008
        ------------------
                                           /s/ Frank Arnone
                                           ---------------------------
                                               Frank Arnone
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
Exhibit 15.3  Ernst & Young Ltda.Huérfanos 770, 5th floorSantiago, ChileTel: +56 2 6761000Fax: +56 2 6761010www.ey.com/cl  AUDITORS CONSENT  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-3ASR
No. 333-163952) of Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P. and in the
related shelf base prospectus of our report dated February 5, 2010, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of ETC Holdings
Ltd. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the
year ended December 31, 2009.   Santiago,
  Chile
  Ernst &
  Young Ltda.May 26,
  2010
  Independent
  Auditors
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 24623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11322]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-619-000]


Blackstone Valley Electric Company; Notice of Filing

May 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 7, 1995, Blackstone Valley Electric 
Company tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced 
docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before May 16, 1995. 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 proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell;
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11322 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 78 

Notifying the President of the United States of the election of the Secretary 

of the Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Notifying the President of the United States of the election 

of the Secretary of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That the President of the United States be 

2 notified of the election of the Honorable Sonceria Ann 

3 Berry as Secretary of the Senate. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP2000
      Ross Avenue, Suite 1800Dallas
      TX 75201-2997Telephone
      (214) 999 1400Facsimile
      (214) 754 7991




Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  To the
Board of Directors of The First American Corporation:
  We have
examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that First American Commercial Real Estate Services,
Inc. (the "Company" and an indirect subsidiary of The First American
Corporation) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of
the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for
commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as
the commercial tax service provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2007
and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iii),
1122(d)(2)(i)-(iv), 112(d)(3)(i)-(iv),1122(d)(4)(i)-(x) and
1122(d)(4)(xiv)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the
servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management's
assertion identifies the individual securities defined by management as
constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.
  Our
examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and. performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria.
  In our
opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing
customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is
fairly stated, in all material respects.
**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 Annual Report of Wentworth VIII, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin
      R. Keating, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      ss.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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/
                Kevin R. KeatingKevin
                R. Keating
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              March
                31, 2008
John Paul AVERNA, petitioner, v. Cynthia Y. TAMPKINS, Warden.

No. 12-9101.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 688 

Expressing opposition to Congressional spending on earmarks. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 22, 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing opposition to Congressional spending on 

earmarks. 

Whereas fiscal year 2022 marked the return of ‘‘congressionally directed spending’’ and ‘‘community project funding’’, also known as ‘‘earmarks’’, after a 12-year hiatus; 

Whereas the return of earmarks marks the return of lawmakers using their powers to circumvent the rules of the 

Senate in order to direct taxpayer dollars to wasteful 

projects; 

Whereas the 117th Congress has reinstituted and embraced 

the wasteful practice of earmarking, as shown by the 

more than 3,000 requests for earmarks in the House of 

Representatives and the more than 8,000 requests for 

earmarks in the Senate for fiscal year 2022; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 688 IS 

Whereas the reckless, 2,700 page, $1,500,000,000,000 omnibus spending bill (the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2022; Public Law 117–103; 136 Stat. 49) enacted in 

March 2022 appropriated billions of dollars to earmarks, 

even though the United States is more than 

$30,000,000,000,000 in debt and experiencing the highest level of inflation for 40 years; 

Whereas the massive, omnibus spending bill includes funding 

for earmarks including, $2,500,000 to construct a museum annex in Vermont, $605,000 to construct a New 

York City greenhouse, and $3,000,000 to establish a 

Brooklyn gallery, in addition to earmark projects including bike trails in Vermont, derelict lobster pots in Connecticut, and a sidewalk for the road of a country club 

in Colorado; 

Whereas former Senator Tom Coburn condemned the use of 

earmarks as a ‘‘gateway drug to overspending’’, and 

former Senator John McCain called earmarks ‘‘the gateway drug to corruption and overspending in Washington’’; 

Whereas several former Members of Congress and lobbyists 

have been convicted of crimes related to earmarking; 

Whereas it is crucial that Congress spend taxpayer dollars 

wisely and with the best return on investment, especially 

during times of historic inflation and Federal debt levels; 

and 

Whereas Congress must stop this reckless Federal spending 

and corrupt political dealing, start paying down the debt 

of the United States, and get the United States back on 

track: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 688 IS 

1 (1) condemns the use of ‘‘congressionally di2 rected spending’’ and ‘‘community project funding’’, 

3 known as ‘‘earmarks’’, to direct and appropriate tax4 payer dollars in any form; 

5 (2) reaffirms the previous ban on the use of 

6 earmarks, and affirms to restore the ban perma7 nently and immediately; and 

8 (3) affirms the need for Congress to reign in 

9 overspending to help curb the inflation crisis that is 

10 crippling the families of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE LINDSEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 17-00753 WHA

ORDER SETTING

SCHEDULE FOR MOTION

TO TRANSFER VENUE

This action was originally assigned to Judge Donna Ryu. On March 14, defendants

declined magistrate judge jurisdiction and moved to transfer venue (Dkt. Nos. 17–18). The

order reassigning the case to the undersigned judge stated “All hearing and trial dates presently

scheduled are vacated. However, existing briefing schedules for motions remain unchanged. 

Motions must be renoticed for hearing before the judge to whom the case has been reassigned”

(Dkt. No. 21) (emphasis added). Defendants have not renoticed their motion to transfer venue,

but they now make a stipulated request to adjust the briefing schedule. This order treats the

request as renoticing the motion and sets the following schedule:

• Plaintiff’s opposition is due MARCH 31 AT NOON.

• Defendants’ reply is due APRIL 7 AT NOON.

• A hearing is set for MAY 4 AT 8:00 A.M.

Case 3:17-cv-00753-WHA Document 26 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendants shall promptly lodge courtesy copies of their motion and supporting papers

with chambers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00753-WHA Document 26 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 2