alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-15T11:38:40Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:38:40Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-15T11:38:40Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="13914">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-15T11:38:40Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>OPINION I O-7518 WAS NEVER ISSUED OK 
</p>
<p>WAS WITHDRAWN. </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 11, 2023. 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, December 11, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24I0081. U.S. RENAL CARE EISENHOWER DIALYSIS v. DERRICK MEADOWS. Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 18CV069357
BLD

- 165 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12

- 1540

___________

In re: ROBERT ODELL DAVIS,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3

- 09

- cv

- 00012)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 19, 2012

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH AND CHA GARES

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : May 9, 2012 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Robert Odell Davis requests by way of mandamus that we compel the District

Court to rule on cer tain motions that were pending in his civil rights action at the time

Davis filed the instant petition. By order entered March 9, 2012, however, the District

Court did rule on those motions and enter ed judgment against Davis. Accordingly, this

mandamus p etition will be denied as moot.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3804 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3804

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ``Technical 
            Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 10 (legislative day, March 7), 2022

  Mr. Lankford (for himself and Mr. Inhofe) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ``Technical 
            Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL SERGEANT MARSHAL ROBERTS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Technical Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Technical 
Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNB Holdings, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, H. N.
Padget, Jr., Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, to the best
of my knowledge and belief, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. May 13, 2004
    
    /s/ H.N. Padget, Jr.H. N. Padget, Jr., President and C.E.O.(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LUCIA GALOFRE

, Appellant,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA N.A.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1469

[ September 6 , 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Joel T. Lazarus

, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE

09020493

.

Lucia Galofre, pro se.

Allison Morat, Law Offices of Pearson Bitman LLP, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

M AY

, D AMOORGIAN and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00301

- CV
Estate of C.E. Erwin, deceased
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 of Victoria County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2

- 12,174

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the

c ase is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged a gainst appell ee. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 29 , 2021
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00525-CR

CHARLES LEVI MILLER APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

A jury convicted Appellant Charles Levi Miller of aggravated assault with a 

deadly weapon, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement on 

June 16, 2010. Appellant did not file a motion for new trial, so his notice of 

appeal was due July 17, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) (providing that 

notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of sentencing in the absence of a 

timely-filed motion for new trial). He did not file his notice of appeal until 

December 2, 2010; thus, it was untimely.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Accordingly, we informed Appellant by letter on December 9, 2010, that 

this appeal was subject to dismissal unless Appellant or any party showed 

grounds for continuing the appeal on or before December 20, 2010. Appellant

and his appointed counsel responded, but the responses do not show grounds 

on which this court may rely for continuing this appeal.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of rule 26 is 

essential to vest this court with jurisdiction. Id. The Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed notice of appeal or motion 

for extension of time, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. Olivo 

v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Only the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals may grant Appellant an out-of-time appeal. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2010); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 525 n.8; 

Cotton v. State, No. 02-10-00001-CR, 2010 WL 520814, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth Feb. 11, 2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Because Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss this

case for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 13, 2011
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Pharus Funding, LLC, as Assignee of LHR, Inc. , Appellant

No. 06

- 20

- 00090

- CV v.
Jerry Solley and Lola M. Solley , Appellees Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Johnson Coun ty, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. C200800653 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss

, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdi ction . Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. We further order that the appellant, Pharus Funding , LLC, as Assignee of LHR, Inc. , pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 29, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-51224 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. FAUSTO SERRANO-VALOIS, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-389-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Fausto Serrano-Valois (Serrano) pl e a d e d guilty to being found in the United States following deport a tion. After applying a 12-level enhancement
pursu a n t t o U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B) b ecause of a prior conviction for drug trafficking, the district court sentenced Serr a n o t o a 30-month term of imprisonment; the c ourt did n ot impose a supervised release term. On appeal, Serrano challenges the 12-level e nhancement, arguing t h a t h i s conviction for conspiracy to commit a federal drug-trafficking offense under 2 1 U .S.C. §§ 841 U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 25, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-51224 Document: 00512419274 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013No. 12-51224

and 846 c annot serve a s the basis f or applying an enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). A ccording t o Serrano, beca u s e t he G uidelines do not define “conspiracy,” the court must look to the generic definition of conspiracy, which requires an overt act, and § 846 does not require an overt act. As Serrano concedes, his challenge i s foreclosed by our d e cision in United States v. Rodriguez-Escareno , 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied , 133 S. C t. 2044 (2013), in which we rejected an identical challenge a gainst a 16- level enhancement u nde r § 2 L 1

. 2(b)(1)(A)(i). Serrano raises the i s sue only to preserve it for f

u rther review. In light of Rodriguez-Escareno , the district court did not err at sentencing. Consequently, the judgment o f t he d istrict court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-51224 Document: 00512419274 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
|Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-K of Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. (Palomar)
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph P. Caruso, as Chief Executive Officer of Palomar, and Paul S.
Weiner, as Chief Financial Officer of Palomar, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

| |                                             
| | --------------------------------------------
| | By:/s/ Joseph P. Caruso                     
| | Name: Joseph P. Caruso                      
| | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
| |                                             
| | Date: March  6, 2008                        

| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | By:/s/ Paul S. Weiner         
| | Name: Paul S. Weiner          
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer
| |                               
| | Date: March  6, 2008          

|
|
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4080]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2761]

Washington, Declaration of Disaster Loan Area; Amendment #1

    The above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to include Pierce 
County in the State of Washington as a contiguous county as a result of 
damages caused by heavy rains and flooding which occurred throughout 
December 1994.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the termination date 
for filing applications for physical damage is March 30, 1995, and for 
economic injury the deadline is October 27, 1995.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: February 10, 1995.
Philip Lader,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-4080 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID BALASYAN,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 1840

Agency No.

A071

- 151

- 243

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted September 15, 2023

Pasadena

, California

Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges

.

Petitioner David Balasyan, a native and citizen of Azerbaijan, seeks review

of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order reversing the Immigration

Judge’s decision to grant withholding of removal under the Convention Against

Tortur e (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

SEP 26 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 1840

T he BIA deni ed Balasyan’s application for protection under the CAT on the

ground that Balasyan failed to show that he would more likely than not be tortured

if removed to Azerb aijan. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland , 23 F.4th 824, 834

(9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that applicant s for withholding of removal under the

CAT must show that they are more likely than not to be tortured if removed to the

proposed country of removal). Th e evidence does not compel a contrary

conclusion

. See Lalayan v. Garland , 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021) (affirming

denial of CAT protection where the record did not indicate a particularized threat

of torture); see also I.N.S. v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U. S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992)

(explaining that we must uphold the BIA’s determination unless the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion). A likelihood of persecution or discrimination

upon removal is not sufficient to establish entitlement to CAT protecti on

. See

Medina

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 979 F.3d 738, 750

- 51 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming the

denial of CAT protection where the record showed that petitioner would likely face

discrimination and persecution but not torture).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 2) is otherwise denied.

PETITION DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4138]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Werner E. Schreiber Blind Trust, et al.; Change in Bank Control 
Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than March 7, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (James M. Lyon, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480:
    1. Werner E. Schreiber Blind Trust; and Marlene I. Havens, Larry W. 
Jochim, and Jerry J. James as co-trustee, all of Whitefish, Montana; 
all to acquire 22.89 percent of the voting shares of Flathead Holding 
Company, Bigfork, Montana, and thereby indirectly acquire Flathead Bank 
of Bigfork, Bigfork, Montana.
    In addition Applicants also propose to acquire a total of 73.95 
percent of the voting shares of Mountain Bank System, Inc., Whitefish, 
Montana, and thereby indirectly acquire Mountain Bank, Whitefish, 
Montana, and Valley Bank of Belgrade, Belgrade, Montana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 14, 
1995.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-4138 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2323

MORRIS R. JORDAN,

Petitioner,

versus

STERLING MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(94-2250-BLA)

Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Morris R. Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark Elliott Solomons, Laura

Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece,

Jill M. Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision

and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black

lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.

1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision

is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Jordan v.

Sterling Mining Co., No. 94-2250-BLA (B.R.B. June 22, 1995). 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