alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6430
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMETT MADISON GRAHAM, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
No. 04-6807
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMMETT MADISON GRAHAM, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-97-98; CA-03-53-7-F; CA-00-206-F) Submitted: July 26, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004- 2 - Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. No. 04-6430 dismissed; No. 04-6807 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon, James, Assistant United States Attorney, Paul Martin Newby, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Emmett Madison Graham, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), denying a certificate of appealability, and denying a motion for return of property in a criminal case. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a c ircuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Sl ack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Graham’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in 04-6430. The district court order appealed from in 04-6807, regarding the motion for return of property in a criminal case, is affirmed. The district court properly denied Graham’s motion for return of property because the issue was previously decided by the district court and is pending on appeal. We dispense withoral argument- 4 - because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
No. 04-6430 DISMISSED No. 04-6807 AFFIRMED
FILED

May 6, 1996

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE 

STATE OF TENNESSEE, (

(

Plaintiff-Appellee, (

(

(

( Williamson Circuit

(

v . ( Hon. Donald P. Harris, Judge

(

( No. 01S01-9501-CC-00015

(

TERRY WOOD, (

(

Defendant-Appellant.(

DISSENTING OPINION

I concur in the dissent of Justice White.

In addition, I would find that the circumstances

next preceding the trial would be determinative. The

majority finds that the defendant's acquiescence in the delay

tipped the scales in favor of the State. However, in March

1990, 35 months before the trial was commenced, the defendant

made inquiry to the court regarding any charges pending

against him. Despite the failure of the clerk to respond to

the inquiry, the defendant filed a motion for speedy trial in

September 1990. Consequently, the delay from 1990 until 1993

was caused solely by the State. I would hold this delay of
-2-

almost three years to be a violation of the right to a speedy

trial, notwithstanding all other circumstances. 

__________________________

Reid, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7516

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEROME THOMAS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (7:04-cr-00095; 7:06-cv-00096)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 7, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerome Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Thomas H. Siemers, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Franklin Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4 The small business issuer’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 small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the smallbusiness issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 13, 2006 /s/ Thomas H. Siemers   Thomas H. Siemers   President and Chief Executive Officer  
18
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2157

To suspend through December 31, 2004, the duty on other yarn, multiple

(folded) or cabled, of viscose rayon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 2, 2000

Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and Mr. THURMOND) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend through December 31, 2004, the duty on other

yarn, multiple (folded) or cabled, of viscose rayon.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.xx.xx Other yarn, multiple (folded)

or cabled: Of viscose rayon

(provided for in subheading

5403.41.00) ......................... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2004 ’’.
2

•S 2157 IS

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to

3 goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consump4 tion, on or after the date that is 15 days after the date

5 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          25,731
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             266
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    135,544
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          31,817
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            34,499
<LOANS>                                        378,878
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,911
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 596,319
<DEPOSITS>                                     502,069
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,843
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,602
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,535
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,200
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 596,319
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,457
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,872
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   302
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                32,631
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,372
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,259
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      873
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   6
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 13,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,987
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,555
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,555
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.51
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,759
<LOANS-PAST>                                       690
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   269
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,419
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      601
<RECOVERIES>                                       220
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,911
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               807
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 30, 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, March 30, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15A1025. CROSSING PARK PROPERTIES, LLC et al. v. JDI FORT LAUDERDALE.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
v150899_ex4-1 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


    
      Exhibit
4.1
termination (adjusted forany increase during the year of termination that was expected tocontinue indefinitely) or (ii) twice the limit set forth in Section401(a)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code for the year of termination(such lesser amount being the “MONTHLY PAYMENT LIMIT”), payment shall bemade in substantially equal monthly installments for the remainder ofthe EMPLOYMENT TERM (but in no event later than December 31 of thesecond calendar year following the year of termination); and     (B) If the amounts described in Section 4(b)(i) exceed the MONTHLYPAYMENT LIMIT, then the MONTHLY PAYMENT LIMIT shall be paid insubstantially equal monthly installments for the remainder of theEMPLOYMENT TERM (but in no event later than December 31 of the secondcalendar year following the year of termination), and any excess overthe MONTHLY PAYMENT LIMIT shall be paid in a lump sum no later than 60days following the EMPLOYEE’s termination.     2. Extensionof EMPLOYMENT TERM. The EMPLOYMENT TERM of the AGREEMENT is hereby extended andthe AGREEMENT shall terminate and expire on March 31, 2012.     3. Effect of Prior Agreements. Except as amended or extended by the AMENDMENT, all ofthe terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect during theEMPLOYMENT TERM.     4. Definitions. Capitalized terms used in this AMENDMENT without definition shallhave the meanings given to such terms in the AGREEMENT.[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK; SIGNATURES FOLLOW]
-2-

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the first dateset forth above.                              **EMPLOYER**   **EMPLOYEE**                 FRANKLIN SAVINGS AND LOAN COMPANY   /s/Gregory W. Meyers      Gregory W. Meyers                 By: /s/Gretchen J. Schmidt             Gretchen J. Schmidt             Its: President          
-3-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ALVIN HOLLIS,

Petitioner

v.

C&R LAUNDRY SERVICES LLC (WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD),

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 427 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of March, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2385 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2385

 To direct the Secretary of the Army to establish a program to market 
                           dredged material.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2000

Mr. Torricelli introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Army to establish a program to market 
                           dredged material.

    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 ``Dredged Material Reuse Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDING.

    Congress finds that the Secretary of the Army should establish a 
program to reuse dredged material--
            (1) to ensure the long-term viability of disposal capacity 
        for dredged material; and
            (2) to encourage the reuse of dredged material.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.

SEC. 4. PROGRAM FOR REUSE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a program to allow the 
direct marketing of dredged material to public agencies and private 
entities.
    (b) Regional Responsibility.--The program described in subsection 
(a) shall authorize each of the 8 regional offices of the Corps of 
Engineers to market to public agencies and private entities any dredged 
material from projects under the jurisdiction of the regional office.
    (c) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, and annually thereafter for a period of 4 years, the 
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the program established 
under subsection (a).
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this Act $2,000,000 for each fiscal year.
                                 <all>
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2077

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow nonitemizers a

deduction for a portion of their charitable contributions.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 22, 2000

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. COVERDELL) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow nonitemizers a deduction for a portion of their charitable

contributions.

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 ‘‘Charitable Giving Tax

5 Relief Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR PORTION OF CHARITABLE CON7 TRIBUTIONS TO BE ALLOWED TO INDIVID8 UALS WHO DO NOT ITEMIZE DEDUCTIONS.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 (relating to charitable, etc., contribu-
2

•S 2077 IS

1 tions and gifts) is amended by redesignating subsection

2 (m) as subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection

3 (l) the following new subsection:

4 ‘‘(m) DEDUCTION FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT ITEMIZING

5 DEDUCTIONS.—In the case of an individual who does not

6 itemize his deductions for the taxable year, there shall be

7 taken into account as a direct charitable deduction under

8 section 63 an amount equal to 50 percent of the excess

9 of the amount allowable under subsection (a) for the tax10 able year over $500.’’

11 (b) DIRECT CHARITABLE DEDUCTION.—

12 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 63

13 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

14 end of paragraph (1), by striking the period at the

15 end of paragraph (2) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by

16 adding at the end the following new paragraph:

17 ‘‘(3) the direct charitable deduction.’’

18 (2) DEFINITION.—Section 63 of such Code is

19 amended by redesignating subsection (g) as sub20 section (h) and by inserting after subsection (f) the

21 following new subsection:

22 ‘‘(g) DIRECT CHARITABLE DEDUCTION.—For pur23 poses of this section, the term ‘direct charitable deduction’

24 means that portion of the amount allowable under section
3

•S 2077 IS

1 170(a) which is taken as a direct charitable deduction for

2 the taxable year under section 170(m).’’

3 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (d)

4 of section 63 of such Code is amended by striking

5 ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the

6 period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ‘‘,

7 and’’, and by adding at the end the following new

8 paragraph:

9 ‘‘(3) the direct charitable deduction.’’

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

12 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
No. 1,819.

#### STATE, Appellant, *v.*BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MADISON COUNTY, Respondent.

*Appeal from. District*Court, *Madison County; M. R.*Parker, *Judge.*

Decided February 11, 1904.

*578
      *Mr. James Donovan, Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. M. M. Dun-can,*for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Upon motion of the appellant herein this appeal is hereby dismissed.
No. 3,604.

#### STATE ex rel. F. J. SPAULDING, Relator, *v.*BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HILL COUNTY, MONTANA, and A. M. MORSE, Respondents.

Original application for writ of mandate.

Decided January 18, 1915.

*Messrs. Freeman & Thelen,*for Relator.

*Mr. Frank W. Turcotte,*for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that A. M. Morse, one of the respondents herein, is not a necessary or proper party to this proceeding, it is ordered that the proceedings as to him he dismissed. It further appearing from its answer herein that the respondent board of county commissioners has fully complied with the demands of the alternative writ, it is ordered that the proceedings as to the hoard be also dismissed and that the relator have and recover his costs as against the board. The respondent Morse is entitled to recover his costs of relator.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2359 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2359

    To make technical corrections in United States Customs Service 
 regulations regarding the importation of goods bearing foreign owned 
           trademarks or trade names, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2000

 Mr. Robb (for himself and Mr. Warner) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make technical corrections in United States Customs Service 
 regulations regarding the importation of goods bearing foreign owned 
           trademarks or trade names, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of 
the Treasury, acting through the Commissioner of Customs, shall modify 
Customs Service rules regarding restrictions on importation of gray 
market articles set forth in part 133 of title 19, Code of Federal 
Regulations, by providing relief from detention for restricted gray 
market goods--
            (1) bearing more than one trademark or trade name; and
            (2) for which the United States owner of any trademark or 
        trade name appearing on such goods is the same as, a parent or 
        subsidiary of, or party otherwise subject to common ownership 
        or control with, any foreign owner of any other trademark or 
        trade name appearing on such goods.
    Sec. 2. The effective date of any modification to Customs Service 
rules made pursuant to this Act shall be the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```