alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1476

___________________________

Sharllette Berry

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Capella University, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: December 14, 2023

Filed: December 28, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action, Sharllette Berry appeals the district court’s1 dismissal

of her civil action against Capella University. After de novo review, see

1The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo); Ascente Bus. Consulting, LLC v. DR myCommerce,

9 F.4th 839, 844 (8th Cir. 2021) (reviewing futility-based denial of leave to amend

de novo); we agree with the district court that Berry did not plead her fraud claim

with the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), see Ascente, 9

F.4th at 845 (party alleging fraud must state with particularity circumstances

constituting fraud, including who, what, where, when, and how). We also conclude

Berry failed to plead facts demonstrating her entitlement to relief under the Arkansas

Deceptive Trade Practices Act. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

(labels and threadbare recitals of elements supported by conclusory statements is

insufficient to show entitlement to relief).

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and deny as moot Capella

University’s motion to supplement the record.

______________________________

-2-
Mark David BAILEY, petitioner, v. Noah NAGY, Warden.

No. 18-5938.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Robert WAZNEY, Petitioner v. Sharon WAZNEY

No. 18-9814

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Brian THURMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5528.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 4.3

 

CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
 OF
 ALLSTATE FINANCING VII

 

THIS Certificate of Trust of Allstate Financing VII (the “Trust”) is being duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801 et  seq.) (the “Act”).

 

1.             Name.  The name of the statutory trust formed by this Certificate of Trust is Allstate Financing VII.

 

2.             Delaware Trustee.  The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with its principal place of business in the State of Delaware are U.S. Bank Trust National Association, 300 Delaware Avenue, 9th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801.

 

3.             Effective Date.  This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.

 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.

 

 

	
 
    	
/s/   Mary J. McGinn
    
	
 
    	
Mary   J. McGinn, as Administrative Trustee
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   Mario Rizzo
    
	
 
    	
Mario   Rizzo, as Administrative Trustee
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   Steven E. Shebik
    
	
 
    	
Steven   E. Shebik, as Administrative Trustee
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
U.S.   BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Delaware Trustee
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Carolina D. Altomare
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Carolina D. Altomare
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Vice President
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
U.S.   BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Property Trustee
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Carolina D. Altomare
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Carolina D. Altomare
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Vice President
    


 

2
Gbenga Benson OGUNDELE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7208

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Phil KERPEN, et al., Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, et al.

No. 18-1240

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2034

To provide for the establishment of a School Security Technology Center

and to authorize grants for local school security programs, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 1999

Mrs. WILSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for the establishment of a School Security Technology Center and to authorize grants for local school

security programs, 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 ‘‘Safe School Security

5 Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL SECURITY TECH7 NOLOGY CENTER.

8 (a) SCHOOL SECURITY TECHNOLOGY CENTER.—
2

•HR 2034 IH

1 (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Attorney General,

2 the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of

3 Energy shall enter into an agreement for the estab4 lishment at the Sandia National Laboratories, in

5 partnership with the National Law Enforcement and

6 Corrections Technology Center—Southeast, of a cen7 ter to be known as the ‘‘School Security Technology

8 Center’’. The School Security Technology Center

9 shall be administered by the Attorney General.

10 (2) FUNCTIONS.—The School Security Tech11 nology Center shall be a resource to local edu12 cational agencies for school security assessments, se13 curity technology development, technology avail14 ability and implementation, and technical assistance

15 relating to improving school security. In addition,

16 the Center shall provide a free information service,

17 using print, electronic media, and the Internet, for

18 schools, principals, school security officers, parent19 teacher associations, and community safety groups,

20 regarding comprehensive technical or non-technical

21 measures to improve security.

22 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

23 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—

24 (1) $3,600,000 for fiscal year 2000;

25 (2) $3,700,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
3

•HR 2034 IH

1 (3) $3,800,000 for fiscal year 2002.

2 SEC. 3. INFORMATION SERVICES FOR SAFETY.

3 Section 4116(a)(1)(B) of the Safe and Drug-Free

4 Schools and Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C.

5 7116(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘safety’’ the

6 following: ‘‘and include the establishment or expansion of

7 a free information service, using print, electronic media,

8 and the Internet, for parents, principals, school security

9 officers, parent-teacher associations, and community safe10 ty groups regarding comprehensive technical and non11 technical measures to improve safety’’.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

CARTAVIOUS DARNELL HAMPTON 

(1)

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00205

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration of 

a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court accept 

Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment.

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of 

the United States Magistrate Judge. The court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance 

of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report.

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Cartavious Darnell 

Hampton GUILTY of Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 21 U.S.C. § 846 

- Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine.

Case 4:23-cr-00205-ALM-BD Document 53 Filed 12/02/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

170
Case 4:23-cr-00205-ALM-BD Document 53 Filed 12/02/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

171
ex4-17.htm





Exhibit 4.17


 



Summary of Agreement between Guilin Jun Tai Fu Construction and Development Co. Ltd. and Shanghai Zheng Hong Construction Consulting Co. Ltd. for bid management services







Guilin Jun Tai Fu Construction and Development Co. Ltd. (“Guilin JTF”) entered into an agreement (“Agreement”) with Shanghai Zheng Hong Construction Consulting Co. Ltd. (“Zheng Hong”) on December 1, 2011.  Pursuant to the Agreement, Zheng Hong shall provide bid management services to Guilin JTF for the construction of the Green Energy Smart Grid Industrial Park, including -








	
·  

	
assist Guilin JTF in filing the application for bid invitations;








	
·  

	
distribute bid invitations and acceptance of bidder registration;








	
·  

	
prepare, submit for review, and distribute pre-bid qualification documents, and assist Guilin JTF to review the pre-bid qualification of the bidders;








	
·  

	
send notices to bidders that meet the pre-bid qualifications;








	
·  

	
prepare bid invitation documents;








	
·  

	
develop bid review procedures and submit the procedures to Guilin JTF for review and approval;








	
·  

	
send out the bid invitation documents and answer questions from bidders;








	
·  

	
assist Guilin JTF organize bid evaluation committee;








	
·  

	
host bid opening meetings;








	
·  

	
organize bid opening, bid evaluation, bid selection and assist Guilin JTF in sending bid acceptance notice to the winning bidder;








	
·  

	
prepare and submit bid evaluation and other work reports; and








	
·  

	
prepare project checklists and base bid price.












In consideration for Zheng Hong’s services, Guilin JTF shall pay Zheng Hong a contract price of RMB 30,000 within seven days of the issuance of the bid acceptance notice.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

MYCHOICE, LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

TAIV, INC., 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-507-JRG-RSP

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff My Choice, LLC’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Orders 

and Production of Documents. Dkt. No. 37. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on November 

15, 2024. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent orally assigned at the hearing. 

It is ORDERED that Taiv produce: 

(1) Non-source code technical documents sufficient to show the operation of the

accused product;

(2) Representative marketing materials;

(3) Intercompany agreements between Taiv, Inc. and Taiv USA;

(4) Balance sheets of Taiv Inc. from the date of the issuance of the patent in suit.

The Motion is otherwise DENIED. 

.

____________________________________

ROY S. PAYNE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012. SIGNED this 17th day of November, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 42 Filed 11/19/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

657
Vamsidhar VURIMINDI, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-6894

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office denied.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Glas-Aire  Industries Group,
Ltd. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September 30, 2004
(the "Report") I, Linda Kwan, Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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:  August 14, 2006


\s\ Linda Kwan
------------------------------------------------------
Linda Kwan, Chief Financial Officer

         This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Robert C. STEINER, et ux., Petitioners, v. UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.

No. 19-755

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 6, 2017

No. 04-16-00755-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF AMINITA PEREZ-MUZZA, DECEASED

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007PB7000089 L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R O F R E F E R R A L

After reviewing the parties’ responses to this court’s prior order, the court has determined 

this appeal is appropriate for referral to alternative dispute resolution. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & 

REM. CODE § 154.021(a); 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 2. It is therefore 

ORDERED that this appeal is referred to a mediated settlement conference to be conducted by 

Eric Galton of Lakeside Mediation Center, 3825 Lake Austin Blvd., Ste. 403 Austin, TX 78703,

the Mediator selected by the parties. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that all appellate deadlines are hereby suspended until

February 20, 2017.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that mediation shall commence at such place as the Mediator 

may designate and proceed in accordance with the schedule set by the Mediator until completed, 

but in any event the mediation shall be completed no later than forty-five (45) days from the date 

of this Order. The Mediator shall file with the Clerk of Court within three (3) days of the 

completion of the mediation a written report concerning the disposition of this appeal.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Mediator shall be compensated and that parties in 

this cause shall be equally responsible for its share of this obligation. Mediation fees shall 

ultimately be taxed as court costs. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 154.054.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that all parties to this cause are directed to attend the 

mediated settlement conference with their counsel of record. The corporate party representative 

in attendance and the individual party representatives shall have full authority to settle up to and 

including the judgment amount. To facilitate this procedure, the Mediator shall encourage and 

assist, but will not compel or coerce the parties in reaching a settlement of the dispute. Unless the 

parties otherwise agree, all matters, including the conduct and demeanor of the parties and their 

counsel during mediation, shall remain confidential and shall never be disclosed to anyone, 

including this court. See id. § 154.053.
If the parties are able to settle all matters related to this appeal, the parties are directed to 

file a joint motion requesting an appropriate disposition of this appeal within thirty (30) days of 

the date of mediation.

It is so ORDERED on January 6, 2017.

___________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
Exhibit 31.3**CERTIFICATION**I, Ronald A. Mayo, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MediaNews Group, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: September 28, 2007   /S/Ronald A Mayo    Ronald A. Mayo   Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32481-32482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11737]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m. on Thursday, June 2, 2022.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact

[[Page 32482]]

Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-
5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: May 26, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-11737 Filed 5-26-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Gene T. FAVORS, Jr., Petitioner v. MICHIGAN.

No. 18-9592

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6601

FERNANDO M. SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK

SAWYER, Director; HARLEY LAPPIN, Regional

Director; R. D. GLANCY, Regional Office;

HARRELL WATTS, National Appeals; GENERAL

COUNSEL FOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BOBBY

SHEARIN, Warden; B. G. COMPTON, Warden; MR.

BOGDAN, Associate Warden; MRS. BRIGHT, Systems

Manager; MR. MCGORTY, Food Service

Administrator; MR. SERVOSS, Assistant Food

Service Administrator; MR. MOST, Assistant

Food Service Administrator; MR. GOLUB, Case

Manager; MS. GEYER, Case Manager; OFFICER

GAMBREL, Mailroom; OFFICER LIVENGOOD, Food

Service; OFFICER SHIFFER, Food Service;

OFFICER BITTINGER, Food Service,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-04-2021-8-AW)

Submitted: October 3, 2005 Decided: November 17, 2005

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

Circuit Judge.
- 2 -

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fernando M. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

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).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Fernando M. Smith appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Federal

Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-04-2021-8-AW (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2005). 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
Diana C. CHERRY, Petitioner v. Doyle R. SIMONS.

No. 19M27

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time denied.