alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 13-4442

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v.

GREGORY GARRETT BROWN,

Appellant

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 1-11-cr-00034-001)

District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.

________________

Argued June 12, 2014

Before: AMBRO and BARRY, Circuit Judges, 

and RESTANI,*Judge

(Opinion filed September 2, 2014)

ORDER AMENDING PRECEDENTIAL OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed 

September 2, 2014, be amended as follows:

On page 11, in the second full paragraph, fifth line down, insert the word “court” 

after “sentencing” and before “should” so that the phrase reads: “a sentencing court 

should first determine a violation . . . .”

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: November 4, 2014

Tmm/cc: all counsel of record 

 

* Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by 

designation.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 235 

AN ACT 

To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 235 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Permanent Internet 

3 Tax Freedom Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON INTERNET ACCESS 

5 TAXES AND MULTIPLE AND DISCRIMINATORY 

6 TAXES ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1101(a) of the Internet 

8 Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by 

9 striking ‘‘during the period beginning November 1, 2003, 

10 and ending October 1, 2015’’. 

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

12 this section shall apply to taxes imposed after the date 

13 of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 9, 2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 235 

AN ACT 

To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom 

Act.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5702 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5702

 To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to reduce the waiting 
     period for holding special elections to fill vacancies in the 
         membership of the Council of the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2010

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to reduce the waiting 
     period for holding special elections to fill vacancies in the 
         membership of the Council of the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. TIMING OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS FOR COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA.

    (a) Reduction of Waiting Period.--Section 401(d)(1) of the District 
of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-204.01(d)(1), D.C. Official Code) is 
amended by striking ``one hundred and fourteen days'' and inserting 
``seventy days''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to vacancies occurring on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in
his capacity as an officer of SPACEHAB, Incorporated ("SPACEHAB"), that, to the
best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SPACEHAB on Form 10-Q for the
period ended December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of SPACEHAB.

Date: February 12, 2003




                                          /s/ Michael E. Kearney
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Michael E. Kearney
                                          President and Chief Operating Officer
#### In the Matter of Fred Stella, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

— The Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts was authorized to institute a disciplinary proceeding against respondent by order of this court dated October 16, 1985, and suspended from the practice of law pending the outcome of such a proceeding by order dated December 2, 1985. Respondent has submitted an affidavit dated May 30, 1986 wherein *876he tenders his resignation as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 15, 1966, under the name of Ferdinando C. Stella.

Respondent outlines the charges of professional misconduct pending against him as follows: that respondent was convicted of a "serious crime” within the meaning of section 90 (4) (d) of the Judiciary Law and of section 691.7 of the rules of this court (22 NYCRR), to wit, on September 10, 1985 he pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court of the City of New York to three counts of forgery in the third degree, class A misdemeanors, and was sentenced to a fine of $1,000 on each count; that on three separate occasions respondent improperly signed the name of a notary public, not himself, to affidavits and later filed two of them with courts.

Respondent’s affidavit of resignation indicates that it is freely and voluntarily tendered; that he is not being subjected to coercion or duress; that he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation; and that he could not successfully defend himself on the merits against the charges pending against him.

Under the circumstances herein, respondent’s resignation as a member of the Bar is accepted and directed to be filed; and it is ordered that respondent be disbarred and his name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective forthwith. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
---

EXHIBIT 99c

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Medina Coffee, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Harry Miller, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




|Date: April 14, 2004 | /s/ Harry Miller
    _______________________
    Harry Miller, C.E.O and C.F.O
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21053-21054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9813]


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

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM


Form Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
Extension of Clearance

    The form described below has been modified and has been submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of clearance 
in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35):

SSS Form 22

    Title: Claim Documentation Form--Conscientious Objector.
    Purpose: It is used to document a claim for classification as a 
conscientious objector.
    Respondents: Registrants who claim to be conscientious objectors.
    Frequency: One-time.
    Burden: The reporting burden is one hour per individual.
    Copies of the above identified form can be obtained upon written 
request to the Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 
Arlington, Virginia, 22209-2425.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of 
clearance of the form should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to the Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 
Arlington, Virginia, 22209-2425.
    A copy of the comments should be sent to Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs. Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service System, 
Office

[[Page 21054]]

of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3235, 
Washington, DC 20435.

    Dated: April 12, 2000.
Gil Coronado,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-9813 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8015-01-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **7 53**  **6**

DAVID L. BRADLEY , Petitioner

– Appellant,

v. WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON , Respondent

– Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Terry L. Wooten , District Judge. ( 0 : 0 9

- cv - 0 1856

- TLW )

Submitted : December 16, 2010 Decided: December 2 9 , 2010

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by unpublished per curiam opinion
.

Dav id L. Bradley , Appellant Pro Se
. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David L. Bradley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a cer tificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006)
. 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) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constituti onal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Bradley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument be cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
A92A1211.

#### BANKS v. GREEN et al.

(423 SE2d 31)

Decided September 17, 1992

Reconsideration denied September 28, 1992

Angelo Banks, *pro se.*

Sognier, Chief Judge.

Angelo Bernard Banks, an inmate of the Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Center at Jackson, brought suit pro se against three members of the Fulton County Sheriff’s Department seeking damages for the alleged disappearance of certain personal property belonging to Banks when he was transferred from the Fulton County Jail to the prison at Jackson to begin serving his sentence. The trial court entered an order granting summary judgment to the defendants and denying several motions made by Banks, and Banks appeals.

Notice of appeal in this case was filed on December 23, 1991, thirty-three (33) days after the entry on November 20, 1991 of the order from which appellant appeals, and three days after the time prescribed by law. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). Our courts have held without exception that the timely filing of a notice of appeal constitutes a jurisdictional requirement, and absent a timely filed notice of appeal this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. *Hull v. Campbell,*130 Ga. App. 637 (204 SE2d 312) (1974). Although appellant’s notice of appeal is dated December 17, 1991, this court has held that the burden of filing the notice of appeal in timely fashion is upon the party taking the appeal, *Moncrief v. Tara Apts., Ltd.,*162 Ga. App. 695 (293 SE2d 352) (1982), and “[this] burden is not satisfied by relying on the postal delivery but may be satisfied only by depositing the notice of appeal with the clerk within the appropriate time frame. [Cit.]” Id. This court has made no exceptions to the rule where the untimeliness is allegedly attributable to the trial court, *Cranman Ins. Agency v. Wilson Marine Sales &c.,*147 Ga. App. 590, 591 (249 SE2d 631) (1978), or to the illness or even death of counsel, *Wren v. Josey,*97 Ga. App. 593, 594 (103 SE2d 745) (1958), and we see no reason to do so here. Accordingly, while we are cognizant of appellant’s pro se status, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Cooper, J., concur.*

*590*Michael Mears & Associates, Viuiane M. Haight,*for appellees.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7560.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2011.

Decided: May 2, 2011.

Michael A. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael A. Clark appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion for reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v.*Clark, No. 3:00-cr-00244-REP-1 (E.D.Va. Oct. 12, 2010). We deny Clark’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.*
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 08a0263n.06

Filed: May 15, 2008

No. 07-5438

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY WAYNE PRICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Before: ROGERS, COOK, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. In this appeal, defendant challenges the district court’s denial of his motion

to suppress evidence seized after defendant’s wife consented to a search of defendant’s home. The

search that defendant challenges, however, did not yield evidence pertinent to defendant’s offense

of conviction. Accordingly, even if this court were to determine that the challenged search was

unlawful, such a determination would have no bearing on the validity of defendant’s conviction.

Counsel for the defendant and the government agree that this is the case. The appeal is therefore

dismissed and the case is ordered removed from the oral argument calendar.
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 Trycera Financial, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.


Date:  April 14, 2005

/s/ Matthew S. Kerper
Matthew S. Kerper, President
(Principal executive officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5728 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5728

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the ``Spencer Byrd 
                       Powers, Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2010

 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, as the ``Spencer Byrd 
                       Powers, Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SPENCER BYRD POWERS, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 95 Dogwood Street in Cary, Mississippi, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Spencer 
Byrd Powers, Jr. Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JESUS CABRALES

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 199

- C R

Appeal from

346 th District C ourt

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 60D04939 )

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right

of appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with the trial

court clerk within thirty days from the date of this ord er a certification of the defendant’s right of

appeal as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2 (d). The trial court clerk shall prepare a

supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no later than

October 5 , 2 01 9

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21 st d ay of August , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### Riley *et al. v.*Stern *et al.*

*(City Court of New York, Special Term.*

November 12, 1889.)

Parties—Misjoinder of Defendants—Substitution.

■Under Code Civil Proo. N. *Y.*§ 723, providing that the court may strike out parties, and add others, where a person is improperly joined in the complaint with others as a defendant, the court may strike out the name of such person, and substitute one who should have been made a defendant.

At chambers. Action by W. H. Riley and Adolph Friedlieb against Solomon Stern, Moses Stern,'and Henry Stern, as constituting the Arm of S. & M. Stern. The answer of the two first-named defendants denied that Henry Stern was at any time a member of the firm, and alleged the firm was composed of said two first-named defendants and one Bernard Pasternak. Plaintiffs now move to have the name of Bernard Pasternak substituted for Henry Stern.

*8. F. Kneeland,*for plaintiffs. *L. 8. Marx*and *A. H. Barick,*for defendants.

McAdam, C. J.

The court may strike out parties, and add others. Code, § 723. The only limitation on the power is that a sole defendant cannot be stricken out, and another substituted in his place. *Spence*v. *Griswold,*7 N. Y. Supp. 145; *Davis*v. *Mayor,*14 N. Y. 506, 527; *New York, etc., Assn.*v. *Remington, etc., Works,*89 N. Y. 22. Motion to strike out the names of Henry Stern granted on payment to his attorney of $10 costs, and application to join the name of Bernard Pasternak with those of the two remaining defendants granted, without costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.7

                    ADDENDUM TO PROMOTIONAL PROGRAM AGREEMENT

      This Addendum to the Marketing Services Agreement dated September 30, 1998
(the "Agreement"), between Juno Online Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
as successor in interest to Juno Online Services, L.P. ("Juno") and Hartford
Fire Insurance Company, a Connecticut corporation, and its affiliated
property/casualty insurance companies (collectively, "The Hartford"), is entered
into this 29th day of August, 2000.

      The parties hereby agree that the Agreement shall be supplemented by this
Addendum as follows, provided that all provisions of the Agreement shall remain
in effect except as expressly set forth herein.

      1.    All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

      2.    Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Agreement, the Parties desire to
include in the Relationship the marketing of the [****] (the "Program") from the
Hartford, in an initial test in California, the size and specifications of which
shall be mutually agreed upon.

            a.    The One-Time Acquisition Fee for New Policyholders obtained
                  through the Program shall be $[****].

            b.    There shall be no Ongoing Royalty Fees in connection with the
                  Program.

      3.    The Parties shall discuss in good faith the possibility of promoting
the Program through the Juno WebMail service.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Addendum to be executed
below by their duly authorized signatories.


THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE               JUNO ONLINE SERVICES, INC.
COMPANY, on behalf of itself
and its affiliated property/
casualty insurance companies

By:   /s/ Richard Cason                   By:  /s/ Leelila Strogov
   -------------------------------------     -----------------------------------

Name:     Richard Cason                   Name:    Leelila Strogov
     -----------------------------------       ---------------------------------

Title:    Director, Internet Marketing    Title:   SVP, Business Development
      ----------------------------------        --------------------------------


-----------------------------
[****] Confidential treatment has been requested for this portion pursuant to
Rule 24b-2 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The omitted portion has been filed separately with the Securities Exchange
Commission.