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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7841

GILBERT J. FENWICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; OFFICER MAWAMBA,

CO II; OFFICER STEELE, CO II; OFFICER HARRIS,

CO II; OFFICER WILSON, CO II; JOSEPH MITCHELL,

CO III; KEVIN HERNANDEZ; JOHN DOES; REGINALD

JOHNSON, Sergeant; MARGARET C. CHIPPENDALE,

Hearing Officer; MARVIN REID, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-94-3158-AW)

Submitted: March 19, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before HALL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gilbert J. Fenwick, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Audrey J.S. Carrion, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Gilbert J. Fenwick appeals from the district court's order

denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Our review of the

record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal

is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Fenwick v. Smith, No. CA-94-3158-AW

(D. Md. Nov. 2, 1995). We affirm on the district court's reasoning

the grant of summary judgment for Defendant Sewall B. Smith. However, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), we modify the district

court's order to a dismissal without prejudice of all other Defendants. 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 AS MODIFIED
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41110

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERICA PEREZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:08-CR-311-ALL

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Erica Perez has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Perez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 16, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5795 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5795

  To direct the heads of Federal agencies and departments to publish 
 certain data with respect to disaster relief, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2023

 Mr. Donalds introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the heads of Federal agencies and departments to publish 
 certain data with respect to disaster relief, 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 ``Natural Disaster Transparency 
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. PUBLICATION OF DISASTER RELIEF DATA.

    The head of each Federal agency or department that approves Federal 
funds for natural disaster relief shall publish and regularly update on 
the website of such agency or department a breakdown of--
            (1) the amount of funds approved with respect to each 
        disaster; and
            (2) the amount of funds disbursed with respect to each 
        disaster.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5857 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5857

 To provide that no Federal funds may be used for the U.S. Immigration 
   and Customs Enforcement Secure Docket Card Program, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2023

  Mr. Van Drew (for himself, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Higgins of 
Louisiana, Mr. Nehls, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Hunt, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Posey, Ms. 
   Tenney, Mr. Guest, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Sessions) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that no Federal funds may be used for the U.S. Immigration 
   and Customs Enforcement Secure Docket Card Program, 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 ``No IDs for Illegals Act''.

SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ICE SECURE DOCKET CARD PROGRAM.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
used to establish, implement, or otherwise support the activities of 
the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Secure Docket Card 
Program, or any other similar program of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
                                 <all>
```
No. 02-17-00272-CR

SECOND COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH

RICARDO LUCIO SILVA V. THE STATE OF TEXAS

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

MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Now comes Ricardo Lucio Silva, Appellant in the above styled and 

numbered cause, and moves this Court to grant oral argument in this matter. This

motion is made according to Rule 39.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

and for good cause appellant shows the Court the following:

Application of Rule 39.1, under the facts and circumstances of this case as set 

forth within the trial record demonstrate that oral argument is not unnecessary: (a) the 

appeal is not frivolous; (b) the dispositive issue or issues have not been authoritatively 

decided; (c) the facts and legal arguments, while presented in the briefs and record 

entail substantial content and briefing. As a result, Appellant believes (d) the 

decisional process would be aided by oral argument.1

																																																												 1 Tex. R. App. Proc. 39.1 (2016)

ACCEPTED

02-17-00272-CR

SECOND COURT OF APPEALS

FORT WORTH, TEXAS

5/25/2018 4:09 PM

DEBRA SPISAK

CLERK

 FILED IN 2nd COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS 5/25/2018 4:09:48 PM DEBRA SPISAK Clerk
This appeal presents an important issue concerning the unlawful detention of 

Appellant by an officer who saw no illegal conduct prior to the detention. Appellant 

believes oral argument would aid this Court in reaching a just conclusion.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant makes this

prayer that this request be granted and that oral argument be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Benjamin E. Hoover

The Nix Law Firm

1401 Holliday, Suite 400

Wichita Falls, Texas 76301

Tel 940.322.9200

Fax 940.228.3233

bhoover@thenixlawfirm.com

By: /s/ Benjamin E Hoover

Benjamin E. Hoover

State Bar No. 24052682

Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The State has indicated it does not seek oral argument in this matter.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On the 25th day of May, 2018, a copy of the foregoing document was served 

upon the following parties by electronic service and the transmission was reported as 

complete:
Jennifer Ponder 

Wichita County District Attorney’s Office

900 7th Street

Wichita Falls, Texas 76301

jennifer.ponder@co.wichita.tx.us

/s/ Benjamin E. Hoover

Benjamin E. Hoover
| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                              |                                       |                                          |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                              |                                       |                                          |
| Date:                May 30, 2007 | By:                              | /s/ Christopher              J. LeClerc  |
|                              | Christopher                J. LeClerc      |
|                              | Principal                Financial Officer |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5843 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5843

      To temporarily extend the National Flood Insurance Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2023

 Mr. Higgins of Louisiana (for himself and Ms. Letlow) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To temporarily extend the National Flood Insurance Program.

    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 ``NFIP Stopgap Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    (a) Financing.--Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 
2023'' and inserting ``January 15, 2024''.
    (b) Program Expiration.--Section 1319 of the National Flood 
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2023'' and inserting ``January 15, 2024''.
    (c) Retroactive Effective Date.--If this Act is enacted after 
September 30, 2023, the amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall take effect as if enacted on September 30, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11225]



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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

12 CFR Part 614

RIN 3052-AB52


Loan Policies and Operations; Effective Date

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION: Notice of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) published a final 
regulation under part 614 on March 20, 1996 (61 FR 11303). The final 
regulation removes the requirement that Farm Credit institutions give 
borrowers 10 days prior notification of a change in the interest rate 
on their variable rate loans and replaces it with a 10-day post 
notification for interest rate changes for administered rate loans and 
a 30-day notice if the loan is tied to an external index. In accordance 
with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days 
from the date of publication in the Federal Register during which 
either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the records 
of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the regulations is 
May 3, 1996.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulation amending 12 CFR part 614 published on 
March 20, 1996 (61 FR 11303) is effective May 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Child, Policy Analyst, Regulation Development, Office of 
Examination, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, 
(703) 883-4498, TDD (703) 883-4444,

      or

Joy E. Strickland, Senior Attorney, Regulatory Operations Division, 
Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, Virginia 
22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TDD (703) 883-4444.

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a) (9) and (10))

    Dated: May 1, 1996.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 96-11225 Filed 5-03-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Meza AISPURO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-50574.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 25, 1997.*

Decided Sept. 9, 1997.

*1134Angel Meza Aispuro, Lompoc, California, pro se.

Mary E. Fulginiti, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, California, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.

PER CURIAM:

Angel Meza Aispuro appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion for immediate deportation pursuant to section 438 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h)(2)(A) (1996), and the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l) (1996). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review questions of law de novo, *see United States v. Gutierrez,*116 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court lacked jurisdiction to order Aispuro deported because the United States Attorney did not request Aispuro’s deportation. *See United States v. Flores-Uribe,*106 F.3d 1485, 1488 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(d)(l), redesignated 8 U.S.C. § 1252a(c)(l) in 1996, district court lacked jurisdiction to order deportation absent a request from the United States Attorney with concurrence of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization).

Section 438 of the AEDPA amended 8 U.S.C. § 1252(h) to give the Attorney General discretion to deport an alien convicted of a nonviolent offense other than alien smuggling. Section 1252(h)(2)(A) does not create a private right of action that would allow a convicted alien such as Aispuro to compel the Attorney General to deport him. *See Thye v. United States,*109 F.3d 127, 128-29 (2nd Cir.1997) (per curiam); *see also Cort v. Ash,*422 U.S: 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2087-88, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) (establishing test to determine if private right of action exists).

AFFIRMED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6694

FluiDyne Fluid Power:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5832 

To authorize Inspectors General to continue operations during a lapse in 

appropriations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 

Mr. CONNOLLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To authorize Inspectors General to continue operations 

during a lapse in appropriations, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Keep the Watchdogs 

5 Running Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT DURING LAPSE 

7 IN APPROPRIATIONS. 

8 Subsection (g) of section 6 of the Inspector General 

9 Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5832 IH

1 ‘‘(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 

2 in addition to any other authority, during a lapse in appro3 priations, an Inspector General may incur obligations in 

4 advance of appropriations— 

5 ‘‘(A) for such amounts as may be necessary and 

6 at a rate for operations and under the authority and 

7 conditions as provided in the most recently enacted 

8 appropriations Acts; and 

9 ‘‘(B) to perform the duties of the Office with 

10 respect to any program and operation of the estab11 lishment that continues during the lapse in appro12 priations.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32







<PAGE>



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Learningwire.com (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Stephen K. Smith, the President and
Chief Executive Officer and Michael Grove the Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
their knowledge:

     (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 the Company.


                                          KRANEM CORPORATION
                                          d/b/a
                                          LEARNINGWIRE.COM



May 5, 2005                               By:  /s/ Stephen K. Smith
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Stephen K. Smith, President and
                                              Chief Executive Officer


                                          By:  /s/ Michael Grove
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Michael Grove, Principal Financial
                                              and Accounting Officer
(June 12, 1990)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sasha Alexander, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered on March 8, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.40) and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The evidence at trial, viewed most favorably to the People *(People v Guiliano,*65 NY2d 766, 768), was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. The jury permissibly inferred, based on evidence, not unsupported assumptions, that defendant and his accomplice took jewelry valued at $99,000 from complainant’s office and left an envelope containing costume jewelry in its stead *(People v Kennedy,*47 NY2d 196, 203).

Defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel fails because he has not demonstrated that his attorney’s performance was so deficient and his actions so unreasonable that they fell outside the scope of professional competence *(Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Nor has defendant shown that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance. There is no reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s alleged errors, the outcome of the trial would be different *(People v Simpson,*116 AD2d 65, 67).

The remaining contention, that the identification testimony should have been excluded as unreliable and the product of highly suggestive photographic showup procedures, is not preserved as a matter of law and we decline to reach it (CPL 470.05 [2]). Were we to consider this contention in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding it to be without merit. Defendant contends that the viewing of a single photograph shown to each complainant by the security officer of the Diamond Dealers Club months before the lineup rendered the subsequent lineup and in-court identifications unreliable. However, only identification procedures linked to official law enforcement conduct provide the basis for the suppression of identification testimony *(United States v Wade,*388 US 218; *People v Logan,*25 NY2d 184, 193). Procedures employed by private individuals, as here, provide no basis for *165suppression *(People v Grate,*130 AD2d 590). No connection was established between the Diamond Dealers Club and the police investigation. Furthermore, each complainant established an independent source for the lineup and in-court identification *(People v Satchell,*116 AD2d 753, *Iv denied*67 NY2d 889). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Kassal and Smith, JJ.