alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHELSEA KELLY, as Personal Representative
of the ESTATE OF DELANO SMITH,

Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 3:12-cv-00059-JTM-CAN
CITY OF ELKHART,
OFFICER BRUCE ANGLEMYER,
CORPORAL NORM FRIEND,

SERGEANT JAMES BUCHMANN, and

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
;
OFFICER MICHAEL PRICE, )
)
)

Defendants.

STIPULATION TO AMEND CASE CAPTION

Come now the parties, by counsel, and Stipulate as follows:

1. On August 8, 2012, Chelsea Kelly filed her Motion for Substitution of Personal
Representative to name Ralph E. Smith as Personal Representative for the deceased’s estate with
the clerk of Elkhart Superior Court No. 1.

2. On August 10, 2012, an Order was approved appointing Ralph E. Smith as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Delano Smith.

3. The case caption should be changed to reflect the plaintiff as: Ralph E. Smith, as

Personal Representative of the Estate of Delano Smith.

s/Douglas E. Sakaguchi s/Julie J. Havenith
Douglas E. Sakaguchi (20352-71) Julie J. Havenith (17898-53-A)
Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak Travelers Staff Counsel Office
53600 N. Ironwood Drive 707 E. 80" Place, Suite 100
South Bend, Indiana 46635 Merrillville, Indiana 46410
Telephone: (574) 272-2870 Telephone: (219) 736-2187
Facsimile: (574) 271-4329 Facsimile: (219) 736-4282

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendants
Nigel Dwayne PARMS, petitioner, v. Michael W. HARLOW, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Albion, et al.

No. 12-9104.

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.
Acting 

ChairmanGruenberg

Gray

Stewart Schriefer

Director Cu

Panelists

Advisory Committee

November 4, 2011

Blanton

Urrabazo

Good

Koch

Rainey

Lewis

PN
E X H I B I T   1 1

                STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended June 30    Six Months Ended June 30
(Thousands of dollars and shares)                      1997         1996             1997       1996

<S>                                                  <C>          <C>              <C>        <C>     
Net income                                             $619         $662              $43       $692

Weighted average shares of 
   Common Stock outstanding                          18,537       16,387           18,282     16,293

Shares of Common Stock issuable upon
   conversion of Convertible Preferred Stock          5,535        7,423            2,768      7,423

Shares of Common Stock issuable upon                        
   exercise of employee stock options                 1,211        1,869              606      1,895

Total shares of Common Stock and
   Common Stock equivalents                          25,283       25,679           21,656     25,611

Net income per share                                  $.024        $.026            $.002      $.027                  

<FN>
(1)  Primary and fully diluted per share earnings are substantially the same for each period presented.
(2)  Common Stock equivalents were anti-dilutive in the first quarter of 1997.
</FN>
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

SHANE INGHELS, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Case No. 3:12-CV-754 JD

v. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Shane Inghels, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus case challenging his prison

disciplinary hearing (WCC 12-04-167) held at the Westville Correctional Facility on April 20, 2012.

In response, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that, “Because the conviction and

sanctions challenged in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this case have been vacated, and

the administrative case has been dismissed in its entirety, this proceeding is now moot and this Court

lacks a case or controversy to adjudicate.” DE 10 at 2. In addition the respondent has submitted a

letter from the Indiana Department of Correction indicating that the charges have been dismissed

and the sanctions rescinded. DE 10-1. Though Inghels sought and was granted two enlargements of

time to reply, the deadline for doing so passed on December 12, 2013. To date, the court has not

received a reply from him. Nevertheless, Inghels won. The respondent conceded. Thus, this case

must be dismissed because there is no case or controversy to adjudicate. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341

F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir. 2003). For the foregoing reasons: the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss

(DE 10) and DISMISSES this case.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: January 9, 2014 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court

case 3:12-cv-00754-JD document 15 filed 01/09/14 page 1 of 1
!?IZt/23 

Date 

Designation of Designated Federal Officer For FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking 

Under the Resolution of the Board of Directors bearing Seal No. 076842, dated May 29, 2009, the 

Chairman is authorized to take such actions as are necessary for the establishment, organization, and 

operation of the FDIC Advisory Committee on Community Banking (CBAC}, including designation of its 

Designated Federal Officer (DFO). Pursuant to this authority, I designate Nikita Pearson, Deputy to the 

Chairman for External Affairs, as the DFO for the CBAC. 

Martin J. Gruenberg 

Chairman 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

U
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6296

DEONTE STEVEN BROWN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. SAMUEL WISE, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:21

- cv - 01890

- HMH )

Submitted : February 27 , 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON , WYNN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Christopher Reginald Geel, GEEL & GENTRY, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6296 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Deonte Steven Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Brown ’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a priso ner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6296 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60809

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN CASTANEDA, also known as Big Brother, also known as June Bug,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:10-CR-160

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ruben Castaneda has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a supplemental brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castaneda has filed a response and a supplemental 

response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair 

evaluation of Castaneda’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we 

 

* 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

May 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60809 Document: 00513499989 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/10/2016
No. 14-60809

2

therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. 

See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s supplemental brief and the relevant portions 

of the record reflected therein, as well as Castaneda’s responses. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

Castaneda’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-60809 Document: 00513499989 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/10/2016
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000040615-APR-201312:48 PM
#### Mary Brown BROOKS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Frank HARRIS, Defendant—Appellee, v. R. Maples, In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum Served: Custodian of Records, Labor Relations Office, United States Postal Service, Movant—Appellee.

No. 04-1419.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 3, 2004.

Decided May 21, 2004.

Mary Brown Brooks, Appellant pro se. Robert P. McIntosh, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Movant — Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*926Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Mary Brown Brooks appeals from the district court order granting the Government’s motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by a state court upon a federal employee in his official capacity. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Brooks v. Harris,*No. CA-04-91 (E.D.Va. Apr. 7, 2004). We deny the motion to expedite 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.

*AFFIRMED*
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al., petitioners, v. Joanne PEDERSEN, et al.

No. 12-302.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari before judgment denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1411 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that a convention 

or association of churches includes individuals (with or without voting 

rights) as well as churches. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. LINDER 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 clarify 

that a convention or association of churches includes 

individuals (with or without voting rights) as well as 

churches. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF CONVENTION OR ASSOCIATION 

4 OF CHURCHES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7701 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions) is amended by 

7 redesignating subsection (o) as subsection (p) and by in8 serting after subsection (n) the following new subsection: 
2 

•HR 1411 IH 

1 ‘‘(o) CONVENTION OR ASSOCIATION OF CHURCH2 ES.—For purposes of this title, any organization which is 

3 otherwise a convention or association of churches shall not 

4 fail to so qualify merely because the membership of such 

5 organization includes individuals as well as churches or be6 cause individuals have voting rights in such organiza7 tion.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning be10 fore, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Schedule



 EXHIBIT 10i2 
  
 Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, among Fortune Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) and The Northern Trust Company, et al., establishing an
employee grantor trust in favor of each of the following persons, to the Amended and Restated Trust Agreement constituting Exhibit 10i1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. 
  
 Name 
  
 Mark Hausberg       
 Craig P. Omtvedt    
 Mark A. Roche      

 Norman H. Wesley
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000711039
<NAME> MAXTOR CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-25-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          41,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  130,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,502
<INVENTORY>                                    131,139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311,572
<PP&E>                                         227,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                 148,930
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 397,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          329,845
<BONDS>                                        100,219
<COMMON>                                           532<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (33,344)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   397,252
<SALES>                                        954,040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               954,040
<CGS>                                          893,392
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  893,392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               134,477<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (80,821)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (82,948)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,948)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.57)
<FN>
<F1>COMMON INCLUDES: $195 FOR $0.01 PAR VALUE CLASS A COMMON (19,480,000
SHARES ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING); $337 FOR $0.01 PAR VALUE COMMON (33,748,988
ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING)
<F2>OTHER-SE INCLUDES ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL OF $333,575 AND ACCUMULATED
DEFICIT OF $366,919
<F3>OTHER EXPENSES INCLUDES RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT EXP OF $69,416, SELLING,
GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXP OF $60,532, AND OTHER EXP OF $4,529
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12705]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-67, RM-8624]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Greenfield & Stockton, MO

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition filed by KYOO 
Communications proposing the allotment of Channel 299A at Stockton, 
Missouri, as that community's first local service. The coordinates for 
Channel 299A at Stockton are 37-42-22 and 93-53-21. There is a site 
restriction 8.5 kilometers (5.3 miles) west of the community. To 
accommodate Channel 299A at Stockton, we shall propose the deletion of 
vacant Channel 299A at Greenfield, Missouri.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 10, 1995, and reply 
comments on or before July 25, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: William J. Pennington, III, 
5519 Rockingham Road-East, Greensboro, North Carolina 27407.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-67, adopted May 8, 1995, and 
released May 18, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW, 
Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, 
D.C. 20037, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contact.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-12705 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
[Wells Fargo Logo] **Wells Fargo Bank, NA****Document Custody**1015 - 10th Ave SE Minneapolis, MN 55014**ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA**Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  T h e   C o m p a n y   h a s  determined that the servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the servicing platform as of and for the period as follows: Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction level reporting required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 for which the company provides document custody services, excluding any publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored entity (the "Platform"). Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set fo rth in Item 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other servicing criteria set forth in item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform. Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007 (the "Period"). With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria: 1.The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. 2.The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. 3.Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied, in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the Period. **WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**By: /s/ Shari Gillund****Its: Senior Vice President Dated: February 29, 2008
Katherine SPEED, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. CITY OF DUNEDIN, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4435

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.

Appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 **SECTION
        906 CERTIFICATION**
 
 
 I,
        Dennis
        M. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware corporation
        (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350,
        as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (1)
        the
        accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
        ended
        June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended; and
 
 (2)
        the
        information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: August
                9, 2005
              By:
              /s/ Dennis
                M. McGrathDennis
                M. McGrathChief
                Financial Officer
   A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002 (“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 required by Section 906, has
        been
        provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.