alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1816

___________ Paul Love, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Curators of the University of * Missouri; BTi Employee Screening * [UNPUBLISHED] Services; Bill Mitchell, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 5, 2007 Filed: August 3, 2007

___________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Paul Love appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his action based on the court’s determination that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that the parties reached a settlement agreement at their August 23, 2005 meeting, and that the terms of the agreement are embodied in the tran script of the meeting. SeeChaganti & Assocs.,-2- P.C. v. Nowotny , 470 F.3d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir. 2006) (appeals court reviews for clear error district court’s finding that settle ment agreement existed), cert. denied , 75 U.S.L.W. 3569 (U.S. June 18, 2007) (No. 06- 1377). In addition, we find nothing in the record to support Love’s unsubstantiated claim that he was coerced into the agreement. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 5, 2009 

s0602 

Order 

 

June 5, 2009 

138912 

_________________________________________ 

In re BLAKE SAMUEL COLLINS and 

NEVEAH HARRIS, Minors. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 138912 

 COA: 288182 

Wayne CC Family Division: 

08-479017-NA 

CRYSTAL JEWELL COLLINS, 

Respondent-Appellant, 

and 

MICHAEL FORREST FLETCHER and 

DEPLURI HARRIS, 

Respondents. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Johnny RACKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D02-649.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 6, 2003.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Iva Oza, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linda Harrison, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

STEVENSON, J.

Appellant, Johnny Rackins, was tried by jury and convicted of possession of cocaine. We affirm the conviction, but reverse the thirty-six month sentence and remand for a hearing so that the trial court may resolve the conflict between the apparent oral pronouncement of thirty months incarceration and the written order of thirty-six months. The State concedes that the transcript reflects that the oral pronouncement is inconsistent with the written sentence. However, the State points to at least three court documents signed by the trial judge which direct a thirty-six month sentence and maintains that “it appears that the court reporter either heard incorrectly or perhaps transcribed incorrectly.”

Where a written order does not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence, the oral pronouncement prevails. *See Lacey v. State,*831 *293So.2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, if the State does not concede the error was clerical, a conflict between the written order and the oral pronouncement requires a factual resolution by the trial court.. *See Tory v. State,*686 So.2d 689, 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse the sentence in this case and remand for such a factual resolution and the imposition of the appropriate sentence.

REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALEX AHUMADA, 

AKA ALEX AVILA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-07-00073-CR

Appeal from

 205th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20030D03414)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Alex Ahumada appeals his conviction of less than one gram of cocaine. Finding that

Appellant has not complied with Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss

the appeal.

Rule 25.2(a)(2) governs the defendant’s right to appeal in a criminal case and requires that

the trial court enter a certification of the defendant’s right of appeal in every case in which it enters

a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2. Likewise, Rule 25.2(d) requires

that the trial court certify whether the defendant has a right of appeal under Rule 25.2(a)(2).

TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d). An appellate court is required to dismiss an appeal if a certification that

shows the defendant’s right of appeal has not been made part of the appellate record. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d). 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal but the notice did not include the trial court’s

certification of the defendant’s right to appeal as required by Rules 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The

Clerk’s Office notified Appellant that a certification had not been filed and requested that Appellant
file the certification within thirty days or the appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d).

Appellant has not complied with our request. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

September 24, 2008 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
#### David HARDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D02-3170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 22, 2003.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kevin R. Holtz, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

David C. Harden, Orlando, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Belle B. Schumann, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *State v. Causey,*503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987).

SHARP, W., ORFINGER and MONACO, JJ., concur.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 10, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (“AHAM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Washington, DC. The nature and scope of AHAM's standards development activities are: the development and publication of product performance standards for home appliances.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-1975  Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

d0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

142585 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142585 

 COA: 293599 

Kent CC: 08-005687-FC 

TERRANCE SCOTT BELCHER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
In the MATTER OF: J.D.L.

No. COA17-1265

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: April 17, 2018

AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED. REMANDED IN PART.
STATE of North Carolina v. Rashand Nicholas FITTS

No. 298P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Constance E. Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for State.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for State.

I. Faison Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Wyatt B. Orsbon, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Fitts, Rashand Nicholas.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State.

Ms. N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th of September 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
#### Norrene MCCALL v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

No. 2003-C-1343.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re McCall, Norrene;- — Plaintiff; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Worker’s Compensation Dis-triet 02, No. 01-06057; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 02-1343. ^

Denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 28, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 28, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0101. RES-GA NINE, LLC v. JAMES N. THOMPSON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14A02162
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, National Advisory Board will be hosting a public meeting via conference call to discuss such matters that may be presented by members, and the staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or interested others. The conference call will be held on Tuesday, January 18, 2006 at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small Business Development Centers, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, telephone (202) 205-7045 or fax (202) 481-0681.

Matthew K. Becker,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-19976 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**FERMAVIRPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**

**FORM 10-QSB/AFOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 31, 2006**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I am the ChiefFinancial Officer of FermaVir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Florida corporation (the“Company”).  I am delivering thiscertificate in connection with the Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarterended October 31, 2006 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form10-QSB/A”).

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Form 10-QSB/Afully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| December 29, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Frederick Larcombe   |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|              |   | Frederick Larcombe,      |
|              |   | Chief Financial Officer  |
|              |   | (Principal Financial and |
|              |   | Accounting Officer)      |

 

----
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Monadnock Community Bancorp, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William M. Pierce, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002 and in connection with this quarterly report on Form
10-QSB that:

        1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections
                13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                amended, and

        2.      The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the company's financial condition and results
                of operations.


Date: November 15, 2004                        /s/ William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                               --------------------------
                                               William M. Pierce, Jr.
                                               Chief Executive Officer





                                       19
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 27, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 08-13746

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D. C. Docket No. 07-01749-CV-T-23-MSS

QIWU ZHENG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,

EMILIO T. GONZALES, as Director of the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Service, KATHY A. REDMAN, as

Interim Director of the Tampa Field Office of the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services,

US DISTRICT ATTORNEY A. BRIAN ALBRITTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

 

(October 27, 2008)

Before DUBINA, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing appellant

Qiwu Zheng’s (“Zheng”) complaint for a writ of mandamus and declaratory

judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

We review a district court’s dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction de novo. Community State Bank v. Strong, 485 F.3d 597, 604 (11th

Cir. 2007). 

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that

the district court correctly granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. We agree with the district court’s finding that, to the extent the complaint

sought review of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

(“USCIS”) decision to deny adjustment of status or the underlying discretionary or

factual determinations, review was barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). We also

agree with the district court’s finding that any genuine constitutional or legal

challenge to the denial of Zheng’s application for adjustment of status, including

his claim of denial of due process, is reviewable “only upon a petition for review

filed with an appropriate court of appeals. . . .” R.E.E., p. 12, citing 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(2)(D). 

2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment of dismissal.

AFFIRMED.1

The defendants also make a compelling argument that Zheng’s appeal is moot because

1

Zheng’s complaint no longer presents a live controversy for which any court can give meaningful

relief. Validation of his labor certification renders Zheng ineligible for adjustment of status to that

of a lawful permanent resident. Even if we assume the defendants are correct, it makes no difference

here because the district court’s decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction is clearly correct.

3
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4523 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4523

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
 with respect to the identification of high priority corridors on the 
            National Highway System, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2014

Mr. Farenthold introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
 with respect to the identification of high priority corridors on the 
            National Highway System, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``44 to 69 Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY 
              SYSTEM.

    Section 1105(c)(18)(D) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended--
            (1) in clause (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in clause (iii) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iv) include Texas State Highway 44 from 
                        United States Route 59 at Freer, Texas, to 
                        Texas State Highway 358.''.
                                 <all>
```
ADAMS CREEK ASSOCIATES v. DAVIS, et al.

3A08-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 19, 2018

L. Lamar Armstrong, Jr., Attorney at Law, Smithfield, for Adams Creek Associates.

James E. Hairston, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Davis, Melvin, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 16th of March 2018 by Defendants:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of March 2018."

Defendants shall have up to and including the 18th day of April 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Debra Lynch, Deceased. Dean Lynch, Appellant; Patricia Flaherty et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 605]

In a proceeding to obtain letters of administration for the Estate of Debra Lynch, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Rockland County (Weiner, S.), dated September 8, 1999, as granted that branch of the objectants’ motion which was, in effect, to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable by the appellant personally.

The petitioner received proper notice of the proceeding before the Probate Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts concerning the decedent’s estate. Furthermore, the decedent’s 1995 will was admitted to probate in Massachusetts. Therefore, the Surrogate’s Court providently exercised its discretion by *579giving full faith and credit to the Massachusetts probate decree and in granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction *(see, Matter of Brown,*120 Misc 2d 799, 804; *Matter of Emmons,*93 Misc 2d 615; *see generally, Matter of Acheson,*28 NY2d 155, 162, *cert denied sub nom. Dowell v Acheson,*404 US 826).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the petitioner’s remaining contentions. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Larry W. WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2240.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Williams, Larry W.; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 00; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KW 0877.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), *624660 So.2d 1189; *State v. Parker,*98-0256 (La.5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694.

WEIMER, J., recused.
In the MATTER OF: D.E.M.

No. 279A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed March 2, 2018

Vannoy, Colvard, Triplett & Vannoy, P.L.L.C., by Daniel S. Johnson, Winston-Salem, for petitioner-appellees.

Robert W. Ewing, Clemmons, for respondent-appellant mother.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.