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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6389

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. AHMAD SIMMION LINTON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (1:98-cr-00258-BEL-2; 1:04-cv-02382-BEL)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 24, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished by per curiam opinion.

Ahmad Simmion Linton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Ahmad Simmion Linton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009). We d ismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The time limits for noting an appeal in a civil case are set forth in Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which effectuates 28 U.S.C. § 2107 (2006). See

Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, , 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2363 (2007). When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). A failure to file a notice of appeal in accordance with § 2107 deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. Bowles , 127 S.

Ct. at 2366.

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 29, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on February 24, 2009. * Because Linton failed to file a timely

(Continued) * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to

23 notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVEN DONEWAN CARR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:98-cr-00246-RLV-2; 5:03-cv-00030-RLV) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 18, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Donewan Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Steven Donewan Carr seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Carr has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33012-33013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13363]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11449]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Being 
Imported for Exhibition--Determinations: ``Paintings, Politics and the 
Monuments Men: The Berlin Masterpieces in America'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad 
pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for 
temporary display in the exhibition ``Paintings, Politics and the 
Monuments Men: The Berlin Masterpieces in America'' at the Cincinnati 
Art Museum, Cincinnati, Ohio, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, 
further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United 
States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered 
that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54273137203d3b3a6660616d1427203520317a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="73001610071a1c1d4147464a3300071207165d141c05">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. 
Department of State,

[[Page 33013]]

L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000.

Matthew R. Lussenhop,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-13363 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
2019 Risk Review | 1

Introduction

1 For more information on the FDIC’s Trust through Transparency initiative, see https://www.fdic.gov/transparency/.

2 This report contains information available as of July 15, 2019.

The FDIC has a long tradition of identifying, 

analyzing, and addressing key risks in the economy, 

financial markets, and the banking industry. With 

this publication—the 2019 Risk Review—the FDIC 

is expanding its coverage of risks that have the 

potential to affect stability and public confidence in 

the U.S. financial system. The publication serves the 

FDIC’s mission by focusing on risks at a stage when 

policymakers, bankers, and the general public can act 

to mitigate their scope and impact. It also contributes 

to efforts to build trust and confidence through 

openness and accountability as part of the FDIC’s 

Trust through Transparency initiative.1

The annual Risk Review provides a summary of key 

credit and market risks that ultimately may affect FDICinsured institutions and the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance 

Fund. Much of the discussion focuses on risks that 

may affect community banks. As the primary federal 

regulator for the majority of community banks in the 

United States, the FDIC is well-positioned to discuss 

risks that may affect the U.S. banking system, and 

community banks in particular, and to benefit from this 

public discussion. 

The report summarizes conditions in the U.S. economy, 

financial markets, and banking industry, and presents 

key risks to banks in two broad categories: credit risk 

and market risk. The credit risk areas discussed are 

agriculture, commercial real estate, energy, housing, 

leveraged lending and corporate debt, and nonbank 

lending. The market risk areas discussed are interest 

rate risk and deposit competition, and liquidity. 

Section I is an executive summary. Section II is an 

overview of economic, financial market, and banking 

industry conditions. Section III is our assessment of 

the key credit and market risks facing banks.2
SUN BANCORP, INC.
		                    	ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
                      		       APRIL 24, 1997

		
                     CERTIFICATE  OF JUDGES OF ELECTIONS

     We, Charles W. Groce, Gary L. Ritter and Michael P. Fisher, Judges of
Election at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders of SUN BANCORP, INC. held on 
April 24, 1997, hereby certify as follows:

           a)  That we have reviewed the list of stockholders, proxies and
               other relevant papers and records in connection with the
               aforesaid meeting:

           b)  That there are, and were, at the close of business on March 6,
               1997, the record date for the aforesaid meeting, 3,381,125
               shares of the Corporation outstanding:

           c)  That we have examined all of the proxies submitted to us with
               respect to the aforesaid meeting:

           d)  That there were present in person or by valid proxy, the
               holder of 2,780,525 shares:

           e)  That we have counted and tabulated all ballots submitted by
               the aforesaid holders, in person or by proxy:

           f)  That the vote for the election of four (4) directors to the
               Corporation whose terms end as indicated below is as follows:

Jeffrey E. Hoyt, 3 year term to expire in 2000

FOR    2,734,595                            	AGAINST     45,501

Paul R. John, 3 year term to expire in 2000

FOR    2,748,482                             AGAINST     31,614

Fred W. Kelly, Jr., 3 year term to expire in 2000

FOR    2,778,186                             AGAINST     1,910

Jerry A. Soper, 3 year term to expire in 2000

FOR    2,766,318                             AGAINST    13,778


           g)  To ratify the appointment of Parente, Randolph, Orlando, Carey
               & Associates, Certified Public Accountants as the independent 
               certified public accountants for SUN BANCORP, INC. for the
               year 1997.

FOR   2,753,363  		      AGAINST     14,154          ABSTAIN    13,008
     



                                    Judges of Election

                                         /s/ Charles W. Groce
                                         --------------------
                              						       Charles W. Groce 

                                         /s/ Gary L. Ritter
                                         --------------------
                           							          Gary L. Ritter 
 
                                         /s/ Michael P. Fisher
                                         --------------------
                            						        Michael P. Fisher
**Exhibit 99.1**
  **AGGREGATE
        SCHEDULE OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST DISTRIBUTIONS TO CERTIFICATEHOLDERS**
  Class
              Interest
              Principal
              Losses
              Ending
                  BalanceI-A-1
              4,086,940.77
              7,821,055.24
              -
              261,264,944.76I-A-2
              159,233.44
              304,720.21
              -
              10,179,279.79I-A-R
              1.26
              100.00
              -
              -II-A-1
              234,704.40
              487,292.76
              -
              14,512,707.24II-A-2
              1,384,317.89
              2,874,117.70
              -
              85,597,882.31II-A-3
              53,935.08
              111,979.88
              -
              3,335,020.12III-A-1
              838,293.30
              79,248.59
              -
              53,076,751.40B-1
              141,736.57
              4,042.23
              -
              9,130,957.77B-2
              42,528.72
              1,212.89
              -
              2,739,787.11B-3
              24,809.72
              707.56
              -
              1,598,292.44B-4
              24,794.21
              707.11
              -
              1,597,292.89B-5
              21,272.12
              606.67
              -
              1,370,393.33B-6
              10,631.61
              303.21
              -
              684,909.68
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Indiana

MAURICE BROWN 

Plaintiff(s) 

v. Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-361

INDIANA BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES, IBMV

 Defendant(s)

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

9 the plaintiff 

recover from the defendant the amount of 

 dollars $ , which includes prejudgment interest at the rate of % plus postjudgment interest at the rate of % along with costs.

9 the plaintiff recover nothing, the action is dismissed on the merits, and the defendant 

recover costs from the plaintiff .

/ Other: The Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s suit against the IBMV without prejudice.

This action was (check one):

9tried to a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

9tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was

reached.

/decided by Judge Joseph S. Van Bokkelen.

DATE: 11/23/2015 ROBERT TRGOVICH, CLERK OF COURT

/s/ RMNagy

by 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00361-JVB-JEM document 10 filed 11/23/15 page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION 

Nicholas Bosnak, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. Case No. 2:15-CV-304 JVB

Lake County, Indiana, et al., 

Defendants. 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge John Martin issued a Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff 

Christopher Recupido be dismissed without prejudice from this case as a result of his death. No 

party has objected to this Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court accepts it (DE 

29) and dismisses Plaintiff Christopher Recupido without prejudice. 

 SO ORDERED on July 11, 2017. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 HAMMOND DIVISION
---

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Colin V. Hall, certify that

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Solanex
Management Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I, the registrants certifying officer, am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I, the registrants certifying officer, based on my most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, have disclosed
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All deficiencies and weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.

March 28, 2008

/s/Colin V. HallColin V. Hall
  Acting Chief Executive Officer

---
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 193 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 193

      To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a 
                  felony or two or more misdemeanors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a 
                  felony or two or more misdemeanors.

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

SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES INCARCERATING UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS 
              CHARGED WITH CERTAIN CRIMES.

    Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``charged with or'' 
before ``convicted''.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 38570-4-I.

Division One.

August 11, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Laura P. Park, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-06720-1, Richard M. Ishikawa, J., entered April 12, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Becker and Cox, JJ.
#### JOHN SIMMONS CO. v. SHATTUCK.

(City Court of New York, Special Term.

September, 1907.)

Tbial—Special Calendas—Impbopeb Notice.

Since Code Civ. Proe. § 324, authorizes the justices of "the New York City Court to appoint the time of holding Trial Terms, and rule 1 of that court provides that no Trial Term shall be held during September, with a certain exception, a case not within the exception is improperly noticed for trial in September under rule 2, providing that a cause may be placed on the special calendar where a note of issue has been filed and the cause noticed for trial.

Action by the John Simmons Company against Edward L. Shattuck. Plaintiff .moves to place the cause on special calendar under rule 2 of the City Court of New York. Motion denied, with leave tq renew.

Henry W. Sykes, for plaintiff..

Thos. C. Patterson, for defendant.

WADHAMS, J.

An action may be placed on the special calendar, under rule 2 of the rules of the City Court of the city of New York, where a note of issue has been filed and the cause noticed for trial. The defendant contends that the cause has not been properly noticed for trial, and that therefore the motion is premature. A paper purporting to be a notice of trial was served, which gives notice that the issue of fact will be brought to trial and an inquest taken at a Trial Term appointed to be held “on the 16th day of September, 1907, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.” Section 324 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides r

> “The justices of the court, or a majority of them,- from time to time must appoint and may alter the time of holding Special and Trial Terms of the court.”

Pursuant to the statute the court have appointed the Trial Terms by the adoption of the rules of the City Court. Rule 1 is entitled “Trial Terms,” and, after providing that each Trial Term shall begin on the first Monday of the month, continues: “No Trial Term shall be held during the months of July, August and September,” except as hereinafter prescribed. The exception refers to “marine cases and certain cases where a speedy trial is required in furtherance of justice.” There is no contention that this case is within their exception. It is therefore clear that no Trial Term was appointed for September, and that this action was therefore improperly noticed for trial.

Motion denied, with leave to renew upon service of proper notice of trial. No costs.
H H H

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 

550 17th Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20429-9990 

www.fdic.gov 

FDIC-003-2021 

H H H
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS

N O . A P
- 76, 120

EX PA R TE A N TH O N Y TR EN T B A R BO U R , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 2 1 6 3 4 I N T HE 6 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM LAM AR CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N
Pur s u a n t to th e p r o v is io n s o f A rti c le 1 1

. 0 7 o f th e T e xa s Co d e o f Cr im in a l Pr o c edure , the cler k of the trial c ourt transmitted to this C ourt this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex pa rte Young , 4 1 8 S

. W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. C rim. App. 1967). Applica nt was convic ted of two counts of inj ur y to a c hil d a nd se nte nc e d to tw e nty

y e a rs ’ impri so nme nt o n c ount o ne a nd te n y e a rs ’ imprisonment on count two. Applicant’s appea l was dismissed for wa nt of jurisdiction. Barbour

v . S tat e , No. 06-08-26- CR (Tex. App.–Tex arka na, deliver ed May

7, 2008). Ap pli c a nt c on te nd s th a t his c ouns e l r e nd e re d in e ff e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e be c a us e he fai led to timely file a notice of appe al. Counsel filed an a ffidavit in support of Applica nt’s alleg ation.2

We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-t i m e appea l of the j u d g m e n to f

c o n v i c t i o n i n C a

u s e N o . 2 1 6 3 4 f

r o m t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c tC o u rto f L a m a r C o u n t y. Applicant is order ed re turned to that time at which he may g ive a wr itten notice of a

ppeal so that he
may then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a meaning ful appe al. All time limi ts shall be calc ulated

a s if the se nte nc e ha d b e e n impo se d on the da te on wh ic h the mand a te of thi s Cour t is su e s. We h old that, should Applicant desire to pr osecute an appe al, he must take aff irmative steps to file a w ritten

no tic e of a pp e a l in the tr ia l c ourt

wi thi n 3 0 d a y s a ft e r t

he mand a te of

thi s Co ur t is su e s. Applicant’s r emaining claim is dismis sed. Ex Parte Torres , 9 43 S.W. 2d 46 9 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1997).

Deliver ed: Marc h 25, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh