alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6583
MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-92-38-MU-3) Submitted: November 21, 1995 Decided: May 13, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clifford Carson Marshall, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, Rev. Monroe R. Parker, Jr., appeals the district court's denial of Parker's motion to reinstate a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1988) petition for habeas corpus. The petition was dismissed without prejudice in 1993 after the district court, having had no contact with Parker for one year, failed in numerous attempts to locate him. Eleven months later, Parker moved the district court toreinstate the petition. Parker alleged that his mail had been interrupted at two institutions in which he had been confined during that time. The motion to reinstate was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended that the motion be denied. The district court, after considering Parker's objections to the magistratejudge's recommendation, denied the motion and dismissed an independent Bivens * complaint which Parker had submitted. We consider Parker's motion to be a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). In re Burnley , 988 F.2d 1, 2- 3 (4th Cir. 1992). We review district court rulings on such motions for abuse of discretion. Id. at 3. We do not review the merits of the underlying order, only denial of the motion with respect to the grounds set forth in Rule 60(b). Id. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reinstate. In addition, we affirm the court's3 dismissal of the Bivens complaint, as venue does not lie in the Western District of North Carolina. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (1988). We affirm the order of the district court. We dispense withoral 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
EXHIBIT 23.1


To the Board of Directors
The Cyber Group Network Corporation
  and subsidiary


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


     We  consent  to  the incorporation by reference in the annual report of The
Cyber  Group  Network  Corporation  and Subsidiary on Form 10-KSB  of our report
dated  March  26,  2002 on audit of the consolidated financial statements of The
Cyber  Group  Network Corporation and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and for
the  year then ended,  which reports are incorporated  by reference  in the Form
10-KSB.


/S/  MOORE STEPHENS FRAZER AND TORBET, LLP


April 11, 2002





<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16076]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,706]


Sample Service; Long Island, NY; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on February 20, 2001 in response to a petition filed on 
behalf of workers at Sample Service, Long Island, New York.
    The Department of Labor was unable to contact the owner of the 
subject firm to obtain information to make a determination. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 8th day of June, 2001
Edward A. Tomchick,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-16076 Filed 6-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
# C_2012151EN.01000502.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v 3M Italia SpA

(Case C-417/10) (1)

1

(Direct taxation - Conclusion of proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters - Abuse of rights - Article 4(3) TEU - Freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty - Principle of non-discrimination - State aid - Obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law)

2012/C 151/09

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Applicants:

Defendant: 3M Italia SpA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Corporation tax — National legislation providing for different rates of tax on the dividends of a company depending on where it is resident — Commercial transaction involving the participation of companies resident in Italy and companies established abroad — Decision of the authorities considering that the taxes payable were applicable in the case of the companies resident abroad — Concept of the abuse of rights as defined in Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others — Whether applicable to non-harmonised domestic taxes such as direct taxes

Halifax and Others

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

European Union law, in particular the principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights, Article 4(3) TEU, the freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, the principle of non-discrimination, the rules on State aid and the obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law, must be interpreted as not precluding the application, in a case such as that in the main proceedings relating to direct taxation, of a provision of national law which provides for proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters to be concluded in return for payment of a sum equivalent to 5 % of the value of the claim, where those proceedings originate in an application made at first instance more than 10 years before the date of entry into force of that provision and the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

1

---
Lavert ROBERSON, Jr., petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 16-9469.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Robert Earl CLAYBORNE, Jr., petitioner, v. TECUMSEH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

No. 17-7840.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Benjamin APPLEBY, petitioner, v. Dan SCHNURR, Warden, et al.

No. 17-1039.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2001)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 34353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16445]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 34353]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2001-18 of June 8, 2001

                
Determination Under Section 405(a) of the Trade 
                Act of 1974, as amended, Concerning the Socialist 
                Republic of

                Vietnam
                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Trade 
                Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) (the 
                ``Trade Act''), I determine, pursuant to section 405(a) 
                of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2435(a)), that the 
                ``Agreement Between the United States of America and 
                the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on Trade Relations'' 
                will promote the purposes of the Trade Act and is in 
                the national interest.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                determination in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, June 8, 2001.

[FR Doc. 01-16445
Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
**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 *Diatom
      Corporation* ,
      a
      Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-kSB for the yeaar ended December
      31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
      We, officers and directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to our knowledge:




(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.







Dated:
      April 20, 2006





/s/Russ
                George
            
            /s/Toby
                Thatcher
            
            /s/J.
                Dan SiffordRuss
                George
              President/Director
            
            Toby
                Thatcher
              Secretary/Director
            
            J.
                Dan Sifford
              Director
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis panel, Internet Connection Grants.                    

*Date:*                         July 23-24, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         July 23, 2001, 8:30 am to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Time:*                         July 24, 2001, 8:30 am to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Merlyn M. Rodrigues, MD, Medical Officer/SRA, National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20894.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 20, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-16342  Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,396,243
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,992,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,486,929
<PP&E>                                         367,311
<DEPRECIATION>                                 164,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,746,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,510,764
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,826
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,230,706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,746,296
<SALES>                                      6,569,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,569,126
<CGS>                                        5,950,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,950,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               498,951
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                135,585
<INCOME-TAX>                                    63,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             72,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
# Table of Contents

# 1

# 2

# 3

# 4

# 5

# 6

# 7a

# 7b

# 7c

# 7d

# 7e

# 8a

# 8b

# 8c

# 8d

# 8e

# 9a

# 9b

# 9c

# 9d

# 9e

# 10a

# 10b

# 10c

# 10d

# 10e

# 11a

# 11b

# 11c

# 11d

# 11e

# 12a

# 12b

# 12c

# 12d

# 12e

# 13a

# 13b

# 13c

# 13d

# 13e

# 14a

# 14b

# 14c

# 14d

# 14e

# 15a

# 15b

# 15c

# 15d

# 15e

# 16

# 17

# 18
Albert D. BELL, petitioner, v. ARKANSAS.

No. 17-6749.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

*1546Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.
William Leon RHODES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7677.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Joe O. RODRIGUEZ, Jr., petitioner, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.

No. 17-1019.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
CAUSE NO. 44,842-A 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

vs. 

BENNIE RAY GREEN, JR. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

OF GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS 

188TM JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Today, this 1/L day of D~ 20~, the Defendant, Bennie Ray Green, Jr., 

gives Notice of Appeal of his judgment of conviction and sentence in the above-styled cause to 

the Court of Appeals of the State of Texas. 

Defendant 

~~ Respectfully submitted, 

JeffT. II& Jackson 

State Bar No. 24069976 

736-A Hwy. 259 N. 

Kilgore, TX 75662 

Phone: (903) 654-3362 

Fax: (817) 887-4333 

Email: jefftjacksonlaw@gmail.com 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/23/2015 11:14:22 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have hand-delivered a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to the 

Gregg County District Attorney's office at the address of such parties shown by the pleadings 

herein on this ~Z.day of Q~, 20J5. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JeffT. Jackson 

Texas Bar No. 24069976 

Attorney for Defendant
Jean COULTER, petitioner, v. James E. MAHOOD, et al.

No. 16-1494.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg Office denied.
#### Louis HAMBURGER, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Samuel HAMBURGER, Petitioner, v. SAME.

No. 9861.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 12, 1945.

Edward S. Reid, Jr., and Harold M. Shapero, both of Detroit, Mich., for petitioners.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., J. P. Wenchel, Se-wall Key, Helen R. Carloss, Muriel S. Paul, and John W. Smith, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

*857Before HICKS, ALLEN, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated causes were heard upon the record, briefs and arguments of cotinsel, and it appearing that there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the Tax Court, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the decisions of that court entered on February 14, 1944, be and the same are upon the grounds and for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the court promulgated on December 24, 1943.
LONG PHI PHAM, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7242.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-00729

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Loree Rice <rice50@sbcglobal.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:55 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Loree Rice

15 Whitwell Circle

Edmond, OK 73034
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                95,544
<SECURITIES>                                         223,693
<RECEIVABLES>                                         16,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     621,557  
<PP&E>                                             3,778,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (181,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     5,129,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,831,906
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                            1,300
<COMMON>                                              18,782
<OTHER-SE>                                         1,708,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       5,129,941
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      55,020
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     128,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      7500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (81,338)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (81,338)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (81,338)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.004)
        

</TABLE>