alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6460
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus R. KEITH NEELY, a/k/a Robert Keith Neely, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-78-R, CA-99-742) Submitted: October 16, 2002 Decided: October 31, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. Keith Neely, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: R. Keith Neely seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. Neely has also filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. As to Neely’s § 2255 and Rule 33 motions, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Neely’s Rule 33 motion and dismiss his appeal of the denial of his § 2255 motion for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeUnited States v. Neely , Nos. CR-92-78-R; CA-99-742 (W.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2002). Because Neely has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we deny a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (2000). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
#### JOHN FLETCHER WALLACE and wife, RENA WALLACE v. NASH JOHNSON, Individually and NASH JOHNSON and OPHELIA J. CARLTON, Administrators of the Estate of B. D. JOHNSON, deceased.

(Filed 14 October, 1959.)

1. Abatement and Revival § 7—

Plea in abatement for pendency of a prior action cannot be sustained when prior to tbe bearing on .tbe plea in abatement tbe other action bas been dismissed by judgment of nonsuit.

iMooke, J., took no part in tbe Consideration or decision of this ease.

Higgins, J., not sitting.

Appeal by--plaintiffs from *Mints, J.,*April Civil Term, 1959, .of DUPLIN.

This case bears the number A-7844 upon the civil issue docket of the Superior Court of Duplin County. The case, as alleged in the complaint, is summarized in the case of *Wallace v. Johnson,*251 N. C. 11, 110 S.E. 2d 488, the opinion of the Count in which is filed contemporaneously with this opinion. It would serve no useful purpose to repeat here the summary of the case, there, but reference is made to that case for the facts.

The defendants in their answer allege, *inter alia,*that there is a, prior action numbered A-7842 pending between the same parties for the same cause on the civil issue docket of the Superior Court of Duplin County, and prays that the action be dismissed and abate.

From a judgment allowing defendants’ plea in abatement, and dismissing the action on the ground that case numbered ’A-7842 is a prior action pending between the same parties for substantially the same cause in the same court, plaintiffs appeal.

*Jones, Reed <& Griffin for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*Bulter & Butler, Hubert E. Phillips for defendants, appellees.*

PaekeR, J.

It is stated in appellants’ brief that case numbered A-7842 was dismissed by judgment of nonsuit entered prior to the hearing on defendants’ plea in abatement. In the oral argument before us counsel for defendants admitted that such statement in appellants’ brief is correct. This being true the trial court should have overruled the plea in abatement, because case numbered A-7842 was no longer pending. *Wallace v. Johnson,*251 N.C. 11, 110 S.E. 2d 488.

The judgment below is

Reversed.

MooRE, J., took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

HiggiNS, J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01776]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine 
Act Meeting

Dates and Times:  Tuesday, February 9, 2016, at 12:00 noon.

Place:  via Teleconference.

Status:  Closed.

Matters to be Considered: 

Tuesday, February 9, 2016, at 12:00 Noon

1. Strategic Issues.
2. Financial Matters.
3. Pricing.
4. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
5. Executive Session--Discussion of prior agenda items and Board 
governance.

General Counsel Certification:  The General Counsel of the United 
States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed 
under the Government in the Sunshine Act.

Contact Person for More Information:  Requests for information about 
the meeting should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board, Julie S. 
Moore, at 202-268-4800.

Julie S. Moore,
Secretary, Board of Governors.
[FR Doc. 2016-01776 Filed 1-27-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FISCAL
YEAR 1996 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      11,441,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,058,034
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,066,458
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,524,736
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,601,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,568,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,601,399
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,230,617
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            25,690,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               751,164
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,684,855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,459,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,459,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### In re Will of JAMES TURNAGE.

(Filed 1 November, 1935.)

Appeal by caveator from *Small, J.,*at August Term, 1935, of Pitt.

Issue of *devisavit vel non*raised by a caveat to the will of James Turnage, late of Pitt County, and based upon alleged mental incapacity and undue influence.

Tie issue was originally tried at tie September Term, 1934, and resulted in a verdict for the propounders on tie issue of mental capacity and for the caveator on the issue of undue influence.

On appeal the exceptions addressed to tie issue of mental capacity were dismissed as cured by the verdict, and a new trial ordered for failure to direct a verdict in favor of the propounders on the issue of undue influence. *In re Will of Turnage, ante,*130.

On the present hearing, the evidence being practically the same on the issue of undue influence as it was at the first trial, tie court directed a verdict for the propounder in accordance with the opinion rendered on the first appeal, and declined to resubmit the issue of alleged mental incapacity, interpreting our opinion as limiting the new trial to the issue of undue influence. Objection; exception; apjieal by caveator.

*Julius Brown for caveator.*

*Sam Worthington and J. B. James for propomiders.*

Per Curiam.

Oaveator is without substantial ground for complaint. He has had two bites at the cherry, and his Honor was justified in interpreting our opinion as he did.

Tie verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries ofApple REIT Eight, Inc.At December 31, 2008(The state of incorporation or organization of each subsidiary is Virginia, except as noted)

A. Direct SubsidiariesApple Eight Hospitality, Inc.Apple Eight Residential, Inc.Apple Eight Ventures, Inc.

B. Indirect Subsidiaries (held through direct subsidiaries or other indirect subsidiaries)Apple Eight Hospitality Management, Inc.Apple Eight Hospitality Massachusetts, Inc.Apple Eight Hospitality Massachusetts Services, Inc.Apple Eight Hospitality Midwest, LLCApple Eight Hospitality Ownership, Inc.Apple Eight Hospitality Texas, LLCApple Eight Hospitality Texas Services, LLCApple Eight NC GP, Inc.Apple Eight NC LP, Inc.Apple Eight North Carolina, L.P.Apple Eight Overland Park, LLCApple Eight SPE Birmingham, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Columbia, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Concord, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Fayetteville, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Greenville, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Hilton Head, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Jacksonville, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Kansas City, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Overland Park, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Savannah, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Tampa, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Westford, Inc.Apple Eight SPE Winston-Salem, Inc.Apple Eight Services Birmingham, Inc.Apple Eight Services Columbia, Inc.Apple Eight Services Concord, Inc.Apple Eight Services Fayetteville, Inc.Apple Eight Services Greenville, Inc.Apple Eight Services Hilton Head, Inc.Apple Eight Services Jacksonville, Inc.Apple Eight Services Kansas City, Inc.Apple Eight Services Overland Park, Inc.Apple Eight Services Savannah, Inc.Apple Eight Services Tampa, Inc.Apple Eight Services Westford, Inc.Apple Eight Services Winston-Salem, Inc.D&D Beverage Services, LLC*

---

---
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3746 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3746

 To require the Secretary of Labor to review certain provisions of the 
 Code of Federal Regulations related to fiduciary standards under the 
    Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2022

  Mr. Murphy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Labor to review certain provisions of the 
 Code of Federal Regulations related to fiduciary standards under the 
    Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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 ``Pension Risk Transfer Accountability 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REVIEW OF PENSION RISK TRANSFER INTERPRETIVE BULLETIN.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Labor shall--
            (1) review section 2509.95-1 of title 29, Code of Federal 
        Regulations (relating to the fiduciary standards under the 
        Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when selecting 
        an annuity provider for a defined benefit pension plan) to 
        determine whether amendments to such section are warranted; and
            (2) report to Congress on the findings of such review, 
        including an assessment of any risk to participants.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40764

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN DIEGO LOZANO-SALGADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-1166-1

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Diego LozanoSalgado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lozano-Salgado has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40764 Document: 00513882519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
No. 16-40764

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40764 Document: 00513882519 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                 [LETTERHEAD OF MICHAEL, ADEST & BLUMENKRANTZ]
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
     We consent to the use in Registration Statement No. 33-45671 of Utopia
Marketing, Inc. (formerly Sam & Libby, Inc.) (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our
report dated March 31, 1998 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Utopia Marketing, Inc. for the year ended January 3, 1998.
 
     Our audits of the financial statements referred to in our aforementioned
report also include the financial statement schedule of Utopia Marketing, Inc.
(formerly Sam & Libby, Inc.), listed in Item 14(a)2. This financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Corporation's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion,
such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements takes as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.
 
                                          MICHAEL, ADEST & BLUMENKRANTZ
 
New York, New York
March 31, 1998
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3182]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name of Committee: Vision Research Review Committee.
    Date: February 21, 1995.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. until adjournment at approximately noon.
    Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, Delaware Room, 8120 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 652-2000
    Contact Person: Lois DeNinno, Committee Management Officer, EPS 
350, 6120 Executive Blvd. MSC 7164, Bethesda, MD 20892-7164.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sec. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published later than fifteen days prior to 
the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the grant review cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.867, Vision 
Research; National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 3, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-3182 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6878

CHADWICK DEON ANDERSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN, Perry Corr. Inst. , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 02233

- JMC )

Submitted : March 14, 2019 Decided: March 18, 2019

Before W YNN and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Chadwick Deon Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Chadwick Deon Anderson seeks to appeal the distr ict court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (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 d emonstrating 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 distric t court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We ha ve independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERARDO VAZQUEZ; GLORIA 

ROMAN; JUAN AGUILAR, on behalf 

of themselves and all other similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

JAN-PRO FRANCHISING 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-16096

D.C. No.

3:16-cv-05961-

WHA

ORDER

Filed July 22, 2019

Before: Ronald M. Gould and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit 

Judges, and Frederic Block, District Judge.*

Order

 * The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2 VAZQUEZ V. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INT’L

ORDER

Defendant-Appellee’s Petition for Panel Rehearing

(Dkt. 93) is GRANTED.

The opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on 

May 2, 2019, and published at 923 F.3d 575, is 

WITHDRAWN. A revised disposition and an order 

certifying to the California Supreme Court the question of 

whether Dynamex Ops. W. Inc. v. Superior Court, 416 P.3d 

1 (Cal. 2018), applies retroactively will be filed in due 

course.
#### Gus J. Cocciolone, Respondent, v Frank D. Nastasi, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 452]

*530In an action for replevin and to recover damages for the unlawful detention of a horse, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Williams, J.H.O.), dated December 6, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $15,000, and dismissed his counterclaims.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff, an owner, trainer, and breeder of horses, and nonparty “Louis M. Salerno/Questroyal Stable (for Mike Tobin Syndicate manager belong to me), the owner of a 1995 breeding season to belong to me as ‘Seller’ ” (hereinafter the Seller), entered into a stallion service contract on April 7, 1995. Pursuant to the contract, the plaintiffs thoroughbred mare, Kilkare Mary, was to be bred with belong to me for a fee of $4,750 payable when the foal to be produced “[s]tands and nurses.” Paragraph 10 of the contract granted to the “Seller and or its Principal” a security interest in the foal to secure the payment due under the contract. It is undisputed that the subject breeding took place in 1995 and the mare foaled in 1996. It is also undisputed that the plaintiff never paid the full amount payable to the seller under the contract. The plaintiff commenced this action when the defendant, a partner in the syndicate that owned belong to me, took the foal without his permission.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he did not have a valid security interest in the foal. There was no relationship akin to privity between the plaintiff and the defendant as the latter was not a party to the stallion service contract *(see LeBeau v Hulse,*280 AD2d 649, 650 [2001]; *Outrigger Constr. Co. v Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y.,*240 AD2d 382, 383 [1997]). Thus, the security interest granted thereunder did not inure to his benefit. In addition, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he did not have a valid lien on the foal under Lien Law § 183 since there was no express or implied agreement between him and the plaintiff as is required under the statute. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff damages based upon the value of the foal as a yearling when it was unlawfully taken from him.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.