alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Davis BURRELL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. C.J. JACKSON, Defendant—Appellee.

Nos. 03-1767, 03-1768.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 26, 2003.

Decided May 14, 2004.

Charles Davis Burrell, Appellant pro se. Edward Meade Macon, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*893PER CURIAM:

Charles Davis Burrell appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint and entering a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Burrell v. Jackson,*No. CA-03-198-3 (E.D. Ya. filed Apr. 21, 2003 *&*entered Apr. 22, 2003; May 9, 2003). We deny Burrell’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50311

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Luis Carlos Matute-Castro, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CR-2407-1

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Carlos 

Matute-Castro has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Matute-Castro has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50311 Document: 50-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2024
No. 23-50311

2

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-50311 Document: 50-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2024
EXHIBIT 1 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 161-1 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 161-1 Filed 04/05/17 Page 2 of 2
Frank THON, petitioner, v. Philip HEATH, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

No. 12-9722.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Louis Clayton BARTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8236.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration in light of *Alleyne v. United States,* --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2151, --- L.Ed. ---- (2013).
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.

The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Barnett, Appellee. [Cite as State v. Barnett (1993), Ohio St.3d .] Criminal law -- Minor misdemeanor may not serve as underlying predicate offense for purposes of involuntary manslaughter statute, R.C. 2903.04(B). (No. 93-1071 -- Submitted November 10, 1993 -- Decided December 29, 1993.) Certified by the Court of Appeals for Seneca County, No.

13-92-1.

Paul F. Kutscher, Jr., Seneca County Prosecuting Attorney, and James S. Nordholt, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. Paul G. Croushore, for appellee.

The cause is affirmed on authority of State v. Collins (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 115, 616 N.E.2d 224.

Motion denied. Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., dissents.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 127 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.127
                                    Agreed to September 25, 2024        

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR THE UNVEILING OF MARTHA HUGHES 
              CANNON STATUE.

    (a) Authorization.--Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 
is authorized to be used for an event on December 11, 2024, to unveil a 
statue of Martha Hughes Cannon.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
event described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
Drug Development Tools Research Grants – Accepting 

Applications through May 3, 2023

Purpose

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for 

Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), intends to support research activities that enable progress in drug 

development tool (DDT) qualification through a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) open now through 

May 25, 2021 for FY21.* The cycle will be repeated for the next two years and it reopens from February through 

May 3, 2022 and 2023 for FY22 and FY23, respectively.* With this funding opportunity announcement (FOA), 

issuance of new cooperative agreements are anticipated under Limited Competition to support research to 

continue the development of drug development tools that have an accepted Letter of Intent (LOI) within a drug 

development tool qualification program within either CBER or CDER (Animal Models, Biomarkers, Clinical 

Outcome Assessments, and Innovative Science and Technology Approaches for New Drugs (ISTAND) Pilot 

Program). The LOI needs to be fully ACCEPTED (the determination letter of LOI acceptance to the project has 

been issued by FDA) and the project is in the active status with FDA, working toward a goal of FDA qualification 

by the closing date of the FOA. The grants will be used to further the development of tools that, once qualified, 

will be made publicly available to fill unmet needs in drug development.

*Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards will be determined later, contingent upon the Agency budget 

approval and the program priority.

Inquiries

Please direct all inquiries to the appropriate DDT qualification program for your DDT project and cc CDERDDTGrantsContracts@fda.hhs.gov and york.tomita@fda.hhs.gov.

OR for administrative questions, please contact 

Shashi Malhotra

Grants Management Specialist

Office of Operations, Office of Finance Budget & Acquisitions

Office of Acquisitions and Grants Services, HFA-500

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Tel: 301-402-7592

shashi.malhotra@fda.hhs.gov
Larry N. STROMBERG, petitioner, v. David A. VARANO, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, et al.

No. 12-9572.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1458 

To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made 

by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where 

the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate 

commerce. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005 

Mr. ADERHOLT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require any Federal or State court to recognize any 

notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State 

other than the State where the court is located when 

such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL 

4 COURTS. 

5 Each Federal court shall recognize any notarization 

6 made by a notary public licensed under the laws of a State 

7 other than the State where the Federal court is located 
2 

•HR 1458 IH 

1 when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate com2 merce. 

3 SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE 

4 COURTS. 

5 Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a 

6 State shall recognize any notarization made by a notary 

7 public licensed under the laws of a State other than the 

8 State where the court is located when such notarization 

9 occurs in or affects interstate commerce. 

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 10.22
  st
 
 Initial Public Offering
   Units Company Warrant Representative Prospectus Underwriters Section 1
 Business Combination Founders Common
Stock Founders
Shares IPO Shares Founders Warrants Founders Units Sponsors Warrants Co-Investment Units Co-Investment Shares Co-Investment Warrants




---



##### 



Locked-Up
Securities Associated With Portfolio Company
  Consummation Date Termination Date Trust Account




---



##### 



Claim
 Sections 5 and 6 Related Party SPAC




---



##### 



provided, however,




---



##### 



Exchange Act provided, however, provided, however, Restricted Period th




---



##### 



Exhibit A
     Information
   [Signature Page to Follow]




---



##### 



By:
    /s/ Martin FranklinName:
    Martin Franklin




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Martin E. Franklin
Franesiour KEMACHE-WEBSTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9451.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 54 Filed 07/20/05 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 54 Filed 07/20/05 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 54 Filed 07/20/05 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 54 Filed 07/20/05 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:05-mj-70262-MAG Document 54 Filed 07/20/05 Page 5 of 5
Dated: 3/27/2008                                                                        By: /s/E. Todd Whittemore Title:Executive Vice President, Master ServicingAurora Loan Services LLC,   as Master ServicerI, E. Todd Whittemore, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Lehman Mortgage Trust 2007-8 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.E. Todd Whittemore**Exhibit 31 : Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications**(Senior Officer in charge of the servicing function of Aurora Loan Services LLC, in its capacity as master servicer)Name:In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:LaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianNewport Management Corporation, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLCU.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Paying Agent and CustodianWells Fargo Bank, N.A., as CustodianWestlake Settlement Services, LLC, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLC
Steve ROSADO, petitioner, v. David M. UNGER, Superintendent, Wyoming Correctional Facility.

No. 12-9784.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Kenneth WIGNER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9333.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1518 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the exclusion for 

employer-provided educational assistance to include educational assistance 

provided to dependents of employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. KELLER (for himself, Mr. FOLEY, and Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance to include educational assistance provided to dependents of employees. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Family Friendly Em5 ployers Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 1518 IH 

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED EDU2 CATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO DE3 PENDENTS OF EMPLOYEES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 127(c) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining edu6 cational assistance) is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘or a dependent of the em8 ployee’’ after ‘‘education of the employee’’ in sub9 paragraph (A), and 

10 (2) by inserting ‘‘or dependent’’ after ‘‘em11 ployee’’ in subparagraph (B) and in the material fol12 lowing subparagraph (B). 

13 (b) SEPARATE LIMITATION FOR DEPENDENTS.— 

14 Subsection (a) of section 127 of such Code is amended 

15 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

16 ‘‘(3) MAXIMUM EXCLUSION FOR ASSISTANCE

17 FURNISHED TO DEPENDENTS.—If, but for this para18 graph, this section would exclude from gross income 

19 more than $2,500 of educational assistance fur20 nished to the dependents of an employee (in the ag21 gregate) during a calendar year, this section shall 

22 apply only to the first $2,500 of such assistance so 

23 furnished.’’. 

24 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of 

25 section 127(a) of such Code is amended— 
3 

•HR 1518 IH 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘an individual’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘the employee’’, and 

3 (2) in the heading thereof by striking ‘‘MAX4 IMUM EXCLUSION’’ and inserting ‘‘MAXIMUM EXCLU5 SION FOR ASSISTANCE FURNISHED TO EMPLOYEE’’. 

6 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

8 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Jonathan A. MELENDEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10453.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7621
EMORY STEVENS REDFEAR, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. LEWIS SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00073-GCM) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 27, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emory Stevens Redfear, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Emory Stevens Redfear seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Redfear has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
In re Michael Wayne ISLEY, petitioner.

No. 12-10425.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Motion Granted; Order filed July 23, 2013. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00094-CV

____________

JAMES STEARNS, Appellant

V.

LISA MARTENS and STEARNS POOLS AND SPAS, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09-DCV-169484

ORDER

This is an appeal from the property division awarded in a final decree of 

divorce signed November 8, 2013. Appellant timely requested Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296; Tex. Fam. Code § 6.711 (requiring 

findings and conclusions on the characterization and value of assets, liabilities, 

claims, and offsets). Appellant also filed a timely reminder of past due findings and 

conclusions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 297. To date, the requested findings and 

conclusions have not been filed. 
2

On July 5, 2013, appellant filed a motion to abate the appeal, requesting that 

the trial court be directed to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Tex. 

R. App. P 44.4(b). Counsel for appellee Lisa Martens does not oppose the motion, 

and counsel for appellee Stearns Pools and Spas, Inc. has not filed any response in 

opposition to the motion. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.3(a). Accordingly, we GRANT 

appellant’s motion and issue the following order.

We ORDER the appeal abated and direct the trial court to file findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on or before August 16, 2013. Within ten days after 

the trial court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, any party may file a 

request for specified additional or amended findings or conclusions. See Tex. R. 

Civ. P. 298. The trial court shall file any additional or amended findings that are 

appropriate within ten days after such a request is filed. The trial court’s findings 

of fact and conclusions of law, and any additional and amended findings or 

conclusions, shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with this 

court on or before September 20, 2013.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are filed in this Court in a 

supplemental clerk’s record. The Court will also consider an appropriate motion to 

reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may reinstate the appeal on 

its own motion. Appellant’s brief shall be due 30 days after the appeal has been 

reinstated.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Donovan.
Joseph RUPPERT, as Trustee of Fairmount Park, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, petitioner, v. PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 12M130.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.