alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MCKINLEY TERRELL JAMES,

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-00118-FL; 7:06-cv-00041-FL)

Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 27, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

McKinley Terrell James, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

McKinley Terrell James seeks to appeal 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). 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 James 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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 64252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30544]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / 
Sunshine Act Meetings



[[Page 64252]]




FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Farm Credit Administration Board; Regular Meeting

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the forthcoming regular meeting 
of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on 
December 14, 1995, from 10:00 a.m. until such time as the Board 
concludes its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts of this meeting 
will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to 
Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements 
in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

B. Reports

--Farm Credit System Building Association Quarterly Report

Closed Session*

A. New Business

--Enforcement Actions

________________

    *Session Closed--Exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (8) and 
(9).

    Dated: December 11, 1995.
Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 95-30544 Filed 12-12-95; 9:32 am]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
#### STATE v. JOSEPH H. STRICKLAND.

(Filed 19 November, 1958.)

Appeal by defendant from *Hall, J.,*April Term, 1958, of Johnston.

Under an indictment charging rape, defendant was put on trial for and found guilty of an assault with intent to commit rape; and judgment, imposing a sentence of fifteen years in the State’s Prison, was pronounced.

Defendant excepted and appealed, assigning as error the overruling of his motions for judgment of nonsuit.

*Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Bruton, for the State.*

*Harry E. Canaday for defendant, appellant.*

PeR Curiam.

The State offered evidence tending to show that on Saturday, December 28, 1957, about 8:30 p.m., near Clayton, North Carolina, defendant committed an assault with intent to commit rape upon the person of the prosecutrix. No good purpose would be served by setting forth in detail the circumstances of such assault.

Defendant testified and offered evidence tending to establish an alibi; and, on this appeal, he contends that the State’s evidence was insufficient to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the crime.

*220Defendant’s said contention is plainly without merit. The State’s evidence was amply sufficient to warrant a finding by the jury that defendant was the man who committed the alleged criminal assault. Apart from other evidence tending to identify defendant, a State’s witness -testified that, in a conversation with defendant concerning the alleged criminal assault, defendant stated: “Well, I did it; I am the one.”

No error.

PARKER, J., not sitting.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4973 Filed: 12/04/19 Entered: 12/04/19 10:39:06 Page 1 of

 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7414

WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2721-8-20) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William M. Bryson, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Morgan , 346 U.S. 502, 511 (1954) (finding writ available only to correct fundamental error where no other remedy is available); United States v. Mandel , 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988) (same); United States v. Taylor , 648 F.2d 565, 572 (9th Cir. 1981) (writ available where direct appeal pending only in extraordinary circumstances). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
#### Gregory Woods, Appellant, v Henry Tomayo et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 134]

*310Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, J.), entered on or about August 13, 2003, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment denied and the complaint reinstated. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 21, 2003, which granted the motion of defendant, Darlene Rhodes, and the cross motion of defendant, Henry Tomayo, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the judgment.

Plaintiff’s submissions were sufficient to establish the existence of a question of fact as to whether he sustained a serious injury, as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d), which was causally related to the car accident of December 6, 1999. The August 15, 2001 report of Dr. Lubliner asserted that the December 6 accident caused an exacerbation of a previous condition of plaintiffs right knee, pointing to the differences in the preaccident operative report of November 26, 1999—reporting a normal patella and no defect in articular surface—and the postaccident operative report of April 28, 2000—reporting that the articular surface of plaintiffs patella had a grade III defect which required an arthroplasty of the patella. Dr. Lubliner stated that in his opinion the accident of December 6, 1999 was the cause of the grade III articular changes to the patella, of the need for surgery on April 28, 2000 and of the permanent weakness, atrophy and loss of durability related to the patella.

Additionally, the report of Dr. Krinick regarding his examination of plaintiff on April 3, 2000, which report he adopted as true and accurate in his November 5, 2002 affirmation, indicated that while the flexion-extension of plaintiffs left knee was normal at 0 to 150 degrees, the flexion-extension of plaintiffs right knee was 0 to 100 degrees. This test result also serves to substantiate plaintiff’s claim of serious injury *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; *Gonzalez v Vasquez,*301 AD2d 438, 439 [2003]; *Ramos v Dekhtyar,*301 AD2d 428, 429 [2003]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01766]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 9426]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257-1 of December 11, 2015), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Unfinished: Thoughts Left Visible,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan 
Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about March 18, 2016, 
until on or about September 4, 2016, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy 
and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department 
of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8abbdbbacb1b7b6eaecede198abacb9acbdf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1063757364797f7e222425295063647164753e777f66">[email protected]</span></a>). The 
mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: January 21, 2016.
Mark Taplin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2016-01766 Filed 1-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5721 

To amend the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) to require death 

benefits to be paid to a deceased employee’s designated beneficiary or 

next of kin in the case of death resulting from a war-risk hazard 

or act of terrorism occurring on or after September 11, 2001. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2014 

Mr. LYNCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) 

to require death benefits to be paid to a deceased employee’s designated beneficiary or next of kin in the 

case of death resulting from a war-risk hazard or act 

of terrorism occurring on or after September 11, 2001. 

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 ‘‘Overseas Security Per5 sonnel Fairness Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5721 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEFENSE BASE ACT AMENDMENTS RELATING TO 

2 DEATH BENEFITS. 

3 The Defense Base Act (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following new section: 

5 ‘‘SEC. 6. DEATH BENEFITS. 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a person covered 

7 by this Act who dies as a result of a war-risk hazard or 

8 act of terrorism, if there is no person eligible for a death 

9 benefit of the deceased under section 9 of the Longshore 

10 and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 909), 

11 then the benefits provided under section 9(b) of such Act 

12 to a widow or widower of the deceased shall be paid— 

13 ‘‘(1) to a beneficiary designated by the de14 ceased; or 

15 ‘‘(2) if there is no designated beneficiary, to the 

16 next of kin or the estate of the deceased under appli17 cable State law. 

18 ‘‘(b) PAYMENT OF BENEFITS.—Benefits found to be 

19 due under this section shall be paid from the compensation 

20 fund established pursuant to section 8147 of title 5, 

21 United States Code. 

22 ‘‘(c) WAR-RISK HAZARD DEFINED.—In this section, 

23 the term ‘war-risk hazard’ has the meaning provided in 

24 section 201(b) of the War Hazards Compensation Act (42 

25 U.S.C. 1711(b)). 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5721 IH

1 ‘‘(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The death benefit payable 

2 under this section shall apply with respect to deaths occur3 ring on or after September 11, 2001.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

I, John T. Stephens, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CFS
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)            The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
               quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully
               complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 78o(d)) and

(2)            The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


Date:    November 13, 2003                  By:  /s/ John T. Stephens
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               John T. Stephens, Executive Vice
                                               President and Chief Financial
                                               Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 901 has been
provided to CFS Bancorp, Inc., will be retained by CFS Bancorp, Inc., and will
be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 35.1
                                  ------------


                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWMBS, INC.
                     CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2007-J1
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-J1


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2008
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 1, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0026

Lower Tribunal No. 18-25630

________________

Amy Knights,

Appellant,

vs.

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina 

Beovides, Judge.

Font & Nelson, PLLC, and Jose P. Font, and James C. Thomas (Fort 

Lauderdale), for appellant.

Roig Lawyers, and Abbi Freifeld Carr, and Jeffrey R. Geldens 

(Deerfield Beach), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Appellant Amy Knights appeals a final judgment entered in favor of 

Appellee Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Knight sued Citizens 

under her homeowner’s insurance policy seeking recovery for damages 

allegedly caused by a water heater leak. Citizens denied coverage on the 

basis that the leak was determined to be caused by constant, repeated 

leakage or seepage, a cause specifically excluded by the policy. A jury 

returned a verdict in favor of Citizens. Knights argues on appeal that the 

verdict was a product of error, either because the trial court erroneously 

rejected her proposed jury instructions and verdict form, or because the trial

court used the wrong instruction and verdict form. We disagree. Finding no 

abuse of discretion by the trial court, we affirm. See St. Paul Mercury Ins. 

Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, 106 So. 3d 452, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); 

Gonzalez v. Rose, 752 So. 2d 39, 41-42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Sorrells v. 

Montesino, 2 So. 3d 297, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

Affirmed.
#### Philo B. Spaulding, Respondent, v. Chauncey Risley, Appellant.

— Judgment of County Court affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.;

Vann, J., not voting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,973
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 24,041,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,462,942
<PP&E>                                       3,439,581
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,727,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,359,494
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,039,062
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,782,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,727,512
<SALES>                                        353,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,601,332
<CGS>                                        5,325,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,325,757
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,609,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             372,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,427,768
<INCOME-TAX>                                   606,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            821,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   821,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
        

</TABLE>
Order filed January 5, 2017

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00719

- CV

____________ HENRY GUERRA, SR., R EBECCA GOMEZ GUERRA, MICHAEL GUERRA, BLANCA GUAJARDO, ESTHER GOM EZ TRISTAN, LINDA RUTH GARZA, AN D LAURO GARZA , Appellants

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 70768



### O R D E R This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 10, 2016. Appellant s tim ely filed a post

-

judgment motion. The notice of appeal was due September 8, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant s , howeve r, filed their notice of appeal on September 12, 2016, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument is filed
within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).2

Appellant s did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant s are still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late fili ng. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd. , 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). Accordingly, we ORDER appellant s to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal by January 15, 2017

. See Te x. R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If appellant s do not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM