alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1849

[November 10, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; John S. Kastrenakes, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2015-CF-011094-BXXX-MB.

Anthony Miller, Madison, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah Koenig, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          49,965
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       118,730
<OTHER-SE>                                     (168,695)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2020

No. 04-20-00358-CR

Ernest GONZALES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-05-0171-CRA

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due October 12, 2020. Appellant’s first motion for 

extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to November 11, 2020. 

On October 25, 2020, 2020, appellant filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time 

to file the brief until December 11, 2020, for a total extension of 60 days. After consideration, we 

GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file his brief by December 11, 2020.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 26th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,734
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   95,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     15,663
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,781
<PP&E>                                       2,301,182
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,090,855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,416,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          211,694
<BONDS>                                        582,675
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,439
<OTHER-SE>                                     548,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,416,090
<SALES>                                        426,171
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               426,171
<CGS>                                           41,232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  506,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,467)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (133,921)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (38,256)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (95,665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,031)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (96,696)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.53)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. MOREHEAD

No. 192 PC.

Case below: 46 N.C. App. 39.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 May 1980.
## 31.43.

OFFICE OFTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS **AUSTIN**

Konorable U. F. Kieke Gonay Attorney L60 county Oiddinge, Texas

Eo are in rood **1940, in**  whioh **you rmf$xoa**  **mtmt ae** **’ to**  whether **oartai** r o? Maroh 1,

other in 6oheo trlotMO. 1 M **nldmd houm3,**  iot NO. 1 and tbs IdrQ In ,a&001 dl6- the rirlltday or 

### us. inlohooldla1,

### A nn4 hir wire IImbool dltatriotHo. B and Ien to the aohool in ml6 diaRetieod Civil statutes, 1oe5, pro

### nt OS a 

### oensuntruetee on the let raotfoe.ble. 

### “The**oen6u6 truetoe**  **b6tw6en** th6 1st day 0r Idarchand the lat day 0r iopril

### aStarhi8 **appointment**ehtil **take a**  **06n6u6** or all the ahlldren t3m.twlli be over **aeven**and under eighteen yeare ot age on tha 1st day of the rollowing **September**sna rim ax-0**roeident6**Honorable Ii.B. Kieke, Page i?

or the sch001 dletrlct on the 1st day or April.* The trustee is required to visit the reeldence au4 by actual obaervatlon an4 lnterrogatlon Uetermlne the re614ence and other f6CtS requited to be eet out in the cen6u6. The pereon rendering the children la require4 to 6ub6cribe an& 6wear to tha lnfornmtion iurnishe~.

rs pointed out In your letter the 

### qoeetlon or residence 

### irlargely depadent upon the intention of the 

### person in queatlon and rerolvee ltsalf into a queotlon 0r ract. The gaeral rule le roll e6tabll6hed that the re61- 

### dence or 4oniclle or 811inhat 1s Ordh6rilJ that 0r the 

### parent. If the father i6 

### ll.rlzig the domicile oi tbr ?arPily and the chil& rollowe that of the fath6r. 9 RCL M7; Gulf, 0 & 5F Ry. Co. vs. Lemone, 109 Ter. Z&4, 206 SW 76, 4 ALR 915; Deterly v6. tie116(T.C.A. 1932) 53 i5VJ (PA) 847. Vihllethle 4epartPwnt lo net authorlzad to paso upon questions or ract, if the racts art out in four letter are accepted as true an4 k **inoved** iroanhis house in diatriot MO. 1 

### tohi6 hou6e in district 

### Ho. 8prior to &prll 16t, with the intention ot relinpulahing his residence **lo** dietrlct Xo. 1 and eatabliahlng hl6 remi4ance in dl6triot Ho. 8,we ar6 Or the

### opinion$u+t 6UCh fast8 *ould bu 8ufiiOlent to establirrh41s reoidenoe in dlstrlet ifo.8 a8 Of AQrlP l6t for the purpom or echola*ttioenuumretlon of hi6 0hlMren who were alro in district Ho. 2. The 

### residence of 

### theminor ahildren being that of the father, an4 aeaualngthat 

### andor all the facts and clratm6tancee the iathar ha6 change4 the 

### residence

of the iamlly to district Ho. 2, his 

### &nor ohild

### renshould be enum6rated in 6uch dirtriot. Your6 very traly

CCCtRs APPROVEDbfAR 9, I.940

/4fZk.&.- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
#### BROWN v. MOTOR INNS

No. 304 PC

Case below: 47 NC App 115

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 August 1980.
#### STATE v. INGLAND

No. 63 PC.

Case below: 10 N.C. App. 715.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 10 June 1971.
#### BROADNAX v. DELOATCH

No. 19 PC.

Case below: 20 N.C. App. 430.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 March 1974.
#### STATE v. ALDERMAN

No. 65 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 14.

Petition by Attorney General for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 May 1975. Appeal dismissed ex mero motu 6 May 1975.
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

October 26, 2009 

1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

139233 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139233 

 COA: 276424 

Wayne CC: 06-008894-01 

TERRANCE BAILEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 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.
EXHIBIT 32B 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 AutoInfo, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the Report), I, William
I. Wunderlich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company. A
 signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
 and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff
 upon request.  Dated: March 20, 2009/s/ William I. WunderlichWilliam I. WunderlichChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
 Officer)
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, JACKSON LeFLEUR 

POST OFFICE, Jackson, MS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 24-0008

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On October 1, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a December 28, 2022 merit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 24-0008.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.2

The 180th day following the December 28, 2022 decision was June 26, 2023. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until October 1, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the December 28, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 

24-0008 is untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

not explained her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed 

as No. 24-0008, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 24-0008 is dismissed.

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id.

at § 501.6(d).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6795

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

KENNETH ROSHAUN REID, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:04-cr-00353-CMC-1) 

Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 19, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kenneth Roshaun Reid, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kenneth Roshaun Reid has noted an appeal from the district court’s order 

construing his motions to produce the record, to correct, and to dismiss as brought under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and dismissing them as successive and denying his motion for 

reduction of sentence pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 

115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). 

The portion of the district court’s order construing Reid’s motions as § 2255 

motions and dismissing them as successive 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 Reid has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

this portion of the appeal. 
3

With respect to the portion of the district court’s order denying Reid’s motion 

under the First Step Act of 2018, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reid’s informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Reid has forfeited appellate review 

of the court’s ruling. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The 

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited 

to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district 

court’s order. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED IN PART,

AFFIRMED IN PART
# National Hospice Month, 2005

The great strength of America lies in the hearts and souls of our citizens. During National Hospice Month, we recognize hospice caregivers who are building a more compassionate society, where life is valued and those in need can count on the love and support of others. We also recognize the courage and strength of terminally ill patients and their families.

When we help those who hurt and those in pain, we become part of our Nation's armies of compassion. Hospice programs provide an option for individuals with terminal illnesses to be cared for as they choose in their final days, often in their own homes and surrounded by the love of their families. The doctors, nurses, counselors, volunteers, and others who provide hospice care throughout our country bring comfort to those most in need every day, treating terminally ill patients with the dignity and respect they deserve. By dedicating themselves to the care of those approaching the end of life, they demonstrate great love.

The compassion reflected in hospice care is one of the reasons America has the best health care system in the world. Our whole Nation is grateful for the good work of our dedicated medical professionals and hospice caregivers. By taking the time to care for others, they are making America a better place.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim November 2005 as National Hospice Month. I encourage all our citizens to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities. I also ask Americans to recognize our health careprofessionals and volunteers for their contributions to helping those facing terminal illness receive quality care.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this second day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

[FR Doc. 05-22203

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### IN RE COMPLAINT AGAINST GILIO STRAMESE, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, FOR UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.

Argued January 20, 1932

Decided January 21, 1932.

Before Justices Tbenchabd, Daly and Donges.

For the motion, *Joseph L. Smith.*

Pee Cttbiam.

The board of bar examiners found the accused guilty of unethical conduct charged, and recommended that he be suspended from practice as an attorney-at-law for a period of one year. A motion was made to confirm this report.

Our examination of the report and record satisfies us that the report is just and right. Our order, therefore, is that the report be confirmed and that the accused, Gilio Stramese, be suspended from practice as an attorney-at-law for a period of one year, beginning on the twenty-first day of January, 1932.

Incidentally it appears that pending the investigation by the board of bar examiners resulting in the foregoing report now confirmed the accused, Gilio Stramese, passed his examination as counselor-at-law. In view of his suspension as above stated, the order of the court is that he shall not be sworn in as counselor-at-law until the above stated period of suspension has expired.
#### STATE v. BIVINS

No. 609P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 822.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 December 1982.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00039-CR

Rafael Rodriguez, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 49344, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
2

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to

withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Puryear and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: June 18, 2009

Do Not Publish
#### STATE v. BEMBERY

No. 163 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 31.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1977.
#### PATTERSON v. PARKER & CO.

No. 526

Case below: 2 N.C. App. 43.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 October 1968.
#### Cheng Jie CUI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney *895General,* Respondent.

No. 04-71098.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Charles J. Kinnunen, Esq., Hagatna, GU, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Steven Tugander, U.S. Department of Justice, New York, NY, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

Cheng Jie Cui, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenge to the agency’s adverse credibility determination because petitioner failed to exhaust that issue before the Board. *See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358*F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). The agency’s credibility determination is dispositive of petitioner’s eligibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Soldier Accounted For From World War II (Fleeman, A.)

/ Published Nov. 8, 2021
WASHINGTON,