alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Charles Anthony BROOKS, petitioner, v. Charles Edwards BROOKS.

No. 17-5968.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 27, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Cydrisse M. ALVIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6069.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Mary MORIARTY, petitioner, v. Charles ANDERSON.

No. 17-5920.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
# C_2010100EN.01002801.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corta Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Ugo Cifone v Giudice delle indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Trani

(Case C-77/10)

2010/C 100/42

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corta Suprema di Cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ugo Cifone

Applicant:

Question referred

Question referred

The Court of Justice is requested to interpret Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Union with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences: (a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; (b) in fact ensure the maintenance of commercial positions acquired following a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence; (c) provide cases in which the licence may lapse with forfeiture of very large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence.

---
Michael S. BENT, petitioner, v. Patricia LASHWAY, et al.

No. 17-337.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CLEVE ALEXANDER JOHNSON, a/k/a Cuz,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00233-TDS-1; 1:12-cv-00571-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey Alexander Carpenter, IV, LAW OFFICES OF H.A. CARPENTER 

IV, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joan Brodish 

Childs, Sandra Jane Hairston, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela 

Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Randall 

Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cleve Alexander Johnson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 

Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT  32.1


                                  SECTION 1350
                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Robert Fallah,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Key Command  International Corp., hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

      (1)   the  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  for the  annual  period  ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Annual Report") which this statement  accompanies  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   information  contained in the Annual Report fairly presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of Key
Command International Corp.



Dated:  March 16, 2005                           /s/ Robert Fallah
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Robert Fallah
                                                 Chief  Executive Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been  provided to Key Command  International  Corp.
and will be retained by Key Command  International  Corp.  and  furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
James Arthur EDWARDS, petitioner, v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 17-8206.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2652

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. Antonio Triplett, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 8, 2007 Filed: July 23, 2007

___________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Antonio Triplett appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion for return of seized property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). Because Triplett’s property was seized in Septem ber 2000, his action was subject to the provisions of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), Pub. L. No. 106-185, 114 Stat. 202, codified in part at 18 U.S.C. § 983, which applies to forfeiture actions initiated afte r August 23, 2000. See Mesa Valderrama v. United States , 417 F.3d 1189, 1195 (11th Cir. 2005). Under CAFRA, a person who does not receive-2- notice in a nonjudicial civil forfeiture may move to set aside the forfeiture, but such motion must be filed within 5 years after th e date of final publication of the seizure notice, and is the exclusive remedy to se t aside a declaration of forfeiture. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e). Triplett’s action, filed morethan 5 years after the date of final publication in the Wall Street Journal on November 20, 2000, is time-barred. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(3). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
1

6351-01-P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m. EDT, Wednesday, June 7, 2023.

PLACE: CFTC Headquarters Conference Center, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st 

Street, NW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission” or “CFTC”) will hold this meeting to consider the following matters:

• Final Rule: Governance Requirements for Derivatives Clearing 

Organizations;

• Proposed Rule: Derivatives Clearing Organizations Recovery and Orderly 

Wind-down Plans;

• Proposed Rule: Amendments to Part 17 Large Trader Reporting 

Requirements;

• Proposed Order/Request for Comments: European Union Non-Bank Swap 

Dealer Capital Comparability Determination; and

• Amendment to DCO Order of Registration: Cboe Clear Digital, LLC.

The agenda for this meeting will be available to the public and posted on the 

Commission’s website at https://www.cftc.gov. Members of the public are free to attend 

the meeting in person, or have the option to listen by phone or view a live stream. 

Instructions for listening to the meeting by phone and connecting to the live video stream 

will be posted on the Commission’s website.
2

In the event that the time, date, or place of this meeting changes, an 

announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, or place of the meeting, will 

be posted on the Commission’s website.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher Kirkpatrick, 

Secretary of the Commission, 202-418-5964.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Dated: May 31, 2023.

Christopher Kirkpatrick,

Secretary of the Commission.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0184 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. WINSTON ALEXANDER RITTER,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 1 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 23 2024

05/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0184
Donald STURGIS, petitioner, v. Correction Officer Unknown SUARDINI, et al.

No. 16-8549.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,374
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           5,866
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                33,025
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     45,688
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           6,637
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             6,596
<LOANS>                                        173,854
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,752
<DEPOSITS>                                     248,003
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,262
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,471
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 287,752
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,638
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,770
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   880
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,288
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,393
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,557
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,731
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      230
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,184
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,429
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.52
<LOANS-NON>                                        712
<LOANS-PAST>                                       796
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,495
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      184
<RECOVERIES>                                        42
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,583
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,583
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Kallys ALBERT, Sr., petitioner, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., et al.

No. 17-5269.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
Exhibit 10.51 Translated From Japanese  Request for Loan with Draft Loan (Change) [Notice of Applicable Interest Rate Period]  Application date: January 22, 2008 Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Address
        11F NishiShinjuku Showa Building
 13-12 NishiShinjuku 1 cho-me, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo Name
        IA Partners, Inc.
 President& CEO
        Hideki Anan
  Having confirmed the following conditions, I do hereby submit a request to Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation for loan with draft loan service (change) as outlined below. If you consent, please deposit the applicable amount to my (the applicants) account. If this request is the request for change and rejected after your judgment, I will not object.  If I apply market rate for basic interest rate, I notify applicable interest rate period here.  Amount
        100,000,000 yenUse
        Operating fundsDesired date of deposit
        January 31, 2008
        Expected date of final repayment
        April 30, 2008
  Payment details
        Payment cycle
        Payment date
        Number of payments
        Amount repaidmonths
        of each month
        times
        yenyenyenyenFinal due date
        
        100,000,000 yenMethod of interest payment
        Lump sum paymentHandling of bank holidays
        In the event that one of the dates above falls on a bank holiday, the payment shall be made on the following business day.
  Basic interest rate
        □ Short-term prime rate
        Applicable interest rate
        3.00% APR□Applicable interest rate period
        In the event that the applicable interest rate period is divided within the borrowing period and rates are adjusted accordingly:Starts:
Ends:
        1. Rates automatically adjusted on the _ every _ months.
2. Notification made each time with Notice of Applicable Interest Rate Period.
  -------------------------------------------For Bank Use--------------------------------------------------------- Branch No.
        Branch Name
        Process for Final Date
        Decision (Approved / Not Approved)
        Verification
        Verification
        Person in Charge
        Transaction copy check
        Loan seal check0223
        Nakano Branch
        Manager
        Section Chief
        Person in ChargeLoan Acct. No.
        Activity No.
        □ Automatic transfer2000350
        0400017
        □ ID check
EXHIBIT 23.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT
                          -----------------------------


We  consent  to  the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
The Cyber Group Network Corporation and Subsidiary  on Form S-8/A of our report,
dated  May  15,  2001,  appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Cyber
Group  Network  Corporation and Subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2001.


/S/  SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP
SINGER LEWAK GREENBAUM & GOLDSTEIN LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 11, 2002


<PAGE>
Marsha L. PAYTON, petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

No. 16-9546.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States *306Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6099

WILLIAM ALLEN LEGG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA99-3745-DKC)

Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Allen Legg, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Allen Legg, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his request for mandamus relief.

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Legg v. Maryland, No. CA-99-3745-DKC

(D. Md. Dec. 23, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4242 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to disclose 

information on pay raises made to executives and non-executive employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 

issuers to disclose information on pay raises made to 

executives and non-executive employees, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Greater Accountability 

5 in Pay Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4242 IH

1 SEC. 2. PAY RAISE DISCLOSURES. 

2 Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

3 (15 U.S.C. 78m) is amended by adding at the end the 

4 following: 

5 ‘‘(s) PAY RAISE DISCLOSURES.—An issuer required 

6 to file an annual report under this section or section 15(d), 

7 that is not an emerging growth company, shall include in 

8 such report— 

9 ‘‘(1) the percentage increase in the median of 

10 the annual total compensation of all executive offi11 cers (as such term is defined in section 240.3b–7 of 

12 title 17, Code of Federal Regulations) of the issuer 

13 over the last completed fiscal year; 

14 ‘‘(2) the percentage increase in the median of 

15 the annual total compensation of all employees of 

16 the issuer, excluding executive officers, over the last 

17 completed fiscal year; 

18 ‘‘(3) the ratio of the percentage described in 

19 paragraph (1) to the percentage described in para20 graph (2); 

21 ‘‘(4) a comparison of the percentage described 

22 in paragraph (1) to the percentage change over the 

23 same period in the Consumer Price Index for All 

24 Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor 

25 Statistics of the Department of Labor; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4242 IH

1 ‘‘(5) a comparison of the percentage described 

2 in paragraph (2) to the percentage change over the 

3 same period in the Consumer Price Index for All 

4 Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor 

5 Statistics of the Department of Labor.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# L_2008024EN.01005205.xml

| 29.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 24/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 24/52

---

Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Montenegro on the facilitation of the issuance of visas

The Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Montenegro on the facilitation of the issuance of visas entered into force on 1 January 2008, the procedure provided for in Article 14 of the Agreement having been completed on 14 November 2007.

---
Robert COTA, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17M52.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 6, 2017.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under seal granted.
|    |                                                                                                      |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Meet Group, Inc.; and |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|                                                                |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                |
| /s/ James Bugden                                               |
| James Bugden                                                   |
| Chief Financial Officer                                        |
| (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |