alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 4 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 5 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 6 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 7 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 8 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 9 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 10 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 11 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 12 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 13 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 14 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 15 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 16 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 17 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 18 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 19 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 20 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 21 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 22 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 23 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 24 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05729-JSR Document 16-2 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 25 of 25
Case 1:07-cv-05736-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05736-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05736-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05736-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05736-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05736-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05736-LAK Document 1 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 7 of 7
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6413

MICHAEL BANKS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

E. MONTGOMERY TUCKER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-571)

Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Banks, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Banks, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the

magistrate judge's recommendation and find that this appeal is

frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. Banks v. Tucker, No. CA-97-571 (E.D. Va. Feb.

27, 1998). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6537

RICHARD LEE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VA Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:14-cv-00375-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings 

Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Lee Williams 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 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Williams 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 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05338-AKH Document 19 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6251

TIRAN LATRAYER BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM WILLIAMS; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the

State of Maryland; JAMES S. SMITH,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:06-cv-01696-WDQ)

Submitted: June 10, 2008 Decided: June 27, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tiran Latrayer Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Gary E. O. Connor, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

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 the

court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

We deny Brown’s request to treat his motion for an extension of

time to “research [his] next move” as a notice of appeal nunc pro

tunc, because the motion did not indicate Brown’s intent to seek

appellate review. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tiran Latrayer Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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). Except as provided in Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(6), neither this court nor the district court may extend

the time to note an appeal more than sixty days after the judgment

was entered. Ali v. Lyles, 769 F.2d 204, 205 (4th Cir. 1985).

This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v.

Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United

States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

October 29, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on February 3,

2008.* Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or
- 3 -

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
C onst ru ing F eld er ’spl eadi ng l ibe ra ll y , Gulf, Col o. & Santa Fe Ry . C o. v . Bl is s, 368 1 S.W .2d 594 , 599 (Tex.196 3), and in the inte rest of ju dicial econ om y , we w ill treatFelder’s Mo ti on for Leav e to Fi le Appl ic ati on for W ri t of M andamus and Pe tition for W ri t of Ma ndamus as a Pet it ion for W ri t of M andamus. W hile Felde r did not iden tif y the cause , this Court aff irmed Felde r’s conv iction in 2 Fel der v . St ate, 2005 W L 17429 28, J uly 25, 2005. N ot pu bli shed. NO. 07-07 -011 1-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A APR IL 11 , 200 7

_________

_________

_________

___ IN R E N ATHAN F ELD ER , R ELATOR

_________

_________

_________

______ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ.
ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON
Rel ator , N athan Fel der , hasfil ed a Mo ti on for Leav e to Fi le Appl ic ati on for W ri t of Ma ndamus and Pe ti ti on for W ri t of M andamus i n w hic h rela tor req uests t hisC our

t order 1 respo nde nts, T erri Banks (Dallam Cou nty D istrict Cl erk), L u a nn T aylor (Distri ct Clerk), She lly Burne tt (69 Distri ct Court Repo rter), and Mike Carlisle (69 Distri ct Court Repo rter),

th th to respo n d to Feld er’s correspon den ce requesting a copy of the clerk’s record or,
s p e c if ic a ll y, “a co m p le t e co p y o f t h e Ju ry E m p a n e lm e n tli s to f t h e twe lve j u ro rs a n d t h e two alt er nati v es, ” in the c ause in w hic h F eld er was conv icted. W e deny the peti ti on. 22

Fel der ’s“ Mo ti on for Leav e” fail s to es tabl is h hi s e nti tl ement t o mandamusreli ef. A court of a ppe als has aut hority to issue w rits of m and am us against district and coun ty court jud g es w it hin the cour

t of appeal s’ s d is tr ict and al l w ri ts neces sar y to enforc e i ts jur is dicti on. T EX . G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 22.221( a) , (b)(Ver non 2004). Howev er , non e of the re spond ents ide nti fied by

F eld er are j udg es. Asa re su lt , th e named res pondents a re not w it hin our jur is dicti onal reach and we have no a u th o rit y t o i ss ue a w ri t of mandamusag ain st them abse nt a sho w ing that issuan ce of t h e w rit is nece ssaryto enforce ou r juri sdiction . In re Cum m in s , 2 0 0 4 W L 1 9 4 8 0 4 8 , a t*1 (T e x. A p p . –A m a ri ll o 2 0 0 4 , o ri g. p ro ceed ing) (mem . op. ); In re Corona do, 98 0 S .W .2d 691 , 692 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 199 8, orig. proceed ing). Fel der doesnot ide nti fy how i ss uance of the w ritof mandamus ag ain st the n amed
re spond entswoul d be neces sar y to enforc e our

j ur is dicti on.
As Fel der’sM oti on for Leav e to Fi le Appl ic ati on for W ri t of Mandamusand Peti ti on fo r W ri to f

Ma n d a m u s d o e s n o tid e n t ifya n yb a s is u p o n wh ic h t h is co u rtwo u ld h a ve author ity to is sue a w ri t of mandamus , we deny the peti ti on.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice
Short-Term 

Rental Fire Safety

Many people enjoy renting homes or apartments for vacation. These 

rentals are not regulated like hotels and motels. Practice home safety 

in rentals just like you do at home.

Be sure:

ĵ Everyone knows the address of the rental.

ĵ Everyone knows two ways out of every room and out of the rental if there is 

an emergency.

ĵ There are working smoke alarms in every sleeping room, outside each 

separate sleeping area and on every level of the rental.

ĵ There are working carbon monoxide alarms on every level of the rental.

ĵ You can open all doors and windows that lead outside.

ĵ You choose an outside meeting place a safe distance from the rental.

ĵ Everyone knows where to find a first-aid kit.

For more information and free fire-safety resources, visit

usfa.fema.gov.
Basement Fire Safety

Follow these basement safety tips to help

keep your home fire-safe.

Early Warning Devices

• Install a smoke alarm in the basement. Test the alarm each

month, and clean as needed. The basement smoke alarm should

be connected to other smoke alarms in your home.

• If you have oil, gas or wood burning equipment in the basement,

you should also have a carbon monoxide alarm installed in the

basement.

Utilities

• Maintain easy, quick access to your fuse box or circuit breaker

panel.

• Keep the burner access doors on gas water heaters and gas

furnaces closed to prevent flames from escaping and starting a

fire.

Housekeeping

• Keep anything that can burn at least 3 feet from the furnace, oil

burner, wood stoves, water heaters, and other heat-generating

equipment.

• Keep oily rags in airtight containers and away from heat sources.

• Trash should not be stored in the basement.

• Washers and dryers should be plugged directly into wall outlets.

• Clean lint filters every time you use the dryer. Clean the dryer vent

ductwork every year.

• Keep stairs free of clutter and safe for quick exit in an emergency.

For	more	information	and	free	resources,	visit	usfa.fema.gov.

U.S. Fire

Administration
#### In re BRANDT.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

June 15, 1894.)

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
<html>
  <frameset rows="78,*">
    <frame src = "AtributeDetailsM.html" name="menu" scrolling="yes" frameborder="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">

    <frameset COLS="25%,*" border="0" frameborder="yes" framespacing="0">
      <frame src = "AtributeDetailsR.html" target="body" scrolling="auto" frameborder="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0">
      <frame src = "AtributeDetailsB.html" name="body" scrolling="yes" frameborder="yes" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" bordercolor="#999999" framespacing="2">
    </frameset>

  </frameset>
</html>
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

                                                                    Year Ended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                          Dec. 31,   Dec. 26,   Dec. 27,
                                                          2000       1999       1998
                                                          --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                       <C>        <C>        <C>
Income from continuing operations                         $314,363   $339,939   $305,631

Less dividends on preferred stock                           11,351     14,075     14,040
                                                          --------   --------   --------
Income from continuing operations attributable
 to common stock                                          $303,012   $325,864   $291,591
                                                          ========   ========   ========
Average shares outstanding (basic)                          75,370     80,025     78,882
                                                          --------   --------   --------

Effect of dilutive securities:
  Convertible preferred stock                               12,597     15,948     17,549
  Stock options                                              1,138      1,487      1,745
                                                          --------   --------   --------

Average shares outstanding (diluted)                        89,105     97,460     98,176
                                                          ========   ========   ========

Earnings per share from continuing operations (basic)     $   4.02   $   4.07   $   3.70
                                                          ========   ========   ========

Earnings per share from continuing operations (diluted)   $   3.53   $   3.49   $   3.11
                                                          ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronnie Simpson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered March 14, 1985, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not err in granting the People’s request to close the courtroom during the testimony of their key witness. The court held a hearing on the application at which the witness testified that he feared that his testimony in open court would endanger his life. The witness explained that his fear was based on the fact that within weeks after he had participated in a robbery of the drug operation of the codefendant Daniel Staley, the witness’s four accomplices, including the victim of the instant murder, were either dead or comatose from gunshot wounds and that he has since been threatened by friends and family of that codefendant. This inquiry of the witness was "careful enough to assure the court that the defendant’s right to a public trial [was] not being sacrificed for less than compelling reasons” *(People v Jones,*47 NY2d 409, 414-415, *cert denied*444 US 946).

Nor is there any merit to the defendant’s claim that the trial court unduly restricted his cross-examination of the witness. The record reveals that defense counsel for the defendant and his two codefendants were given wide latitude in their questioning of the witness concerning his credibility, character and, in particular, his criminal background. The cross-examination of this one witness comprised the bulk of the trial testimony *(see, People v Allen,*50 NY2d 898).

We have examined the remaining contentions advanced by *597the defendant and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-2000

<CASH>                                           210,646
<SECURITIES>                                     625,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,563,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      252,178
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,080,109
<PP&E>                                           369,584
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (207,867)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,429,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,873,964
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            1
<COMMON>                                          10,405
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1,020,324)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,429,495
<SALES>                                        2,800,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,800,053
<CGS>                                          1,671,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,671,939
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   3,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                64,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (668,699)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       1,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (669,799)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.11)



</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 31073 Summary Calendar

KEVIN J. MUTH , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. PAM HEARN; TAMMY POOLE; JOEL WILLIAMS; MICHELLE NORRIS; JAMES LEBLANC; JERRY GOODWIN , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:16

- CV

- 893

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kevin J. Muth, Louisiana prisoner # 631935 , appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. He also moves for document production. In his complaint, Muth alleged that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs

. Specifically, he asserted that prison officials ignored medical issues , stemming

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 1, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-31073 Document: 00514220180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2017No. 16

- 31073

2 from his di agnosed carpal tunnel syndrome and other medical conditions

. He

re
- urges those challenges on appeal.
M uth’s arguments are unavailing. Even if the assertions in his complaint are true, his contentions effectively amount to a disagreement with the treatment and care provided and do not amount to a constitutional violation. Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) ; see Gobert v. Caldwell , 463 F.3d 339, 346 , 349 n.32 (5th Cir. 2006) ; Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 194

- 95 (5th Cir. 1993)

. To the extent that Muth is arguing, with the benefit of liberal construction, that prison officials sent hi m to administrative segregation in retaliation for his medical requests, his conclusional allegations do not show any retaliatory motive from prison officials or but

- for ca usation

. See Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). According ly , the dismissal of Muth ’s § 1983 action is AFFIRMED. His motion for document production is DENIED AS MOOT. Our affirmance and the district court’s dismissal count as a single st rike under § 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996). Muth is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal unless he is under immi nent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Case: 16-31073 Document: 00514220180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2017