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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1127 

To require that, in the questionnaires used in the taking of any decennial 

census of population or American Community Survey, standard functional 

ability questions be included to provide a reliable indicator of need 

for long-term care. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2009 

Mr. MARTINEZ introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require that, in the questionnaires used in the taking 

of any decennial census of population or American Community Survey, standard functional ability questions be 

included to provide a reliable indicator of need for longterm care. 

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 ‘‘Disability Data Mod5 ernization Act’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 1127 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF STANDARD FUNCTIONAL ABILITY 

2 QUESTIONS IN CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES. 

3 In conducting the 2010 decennial census and the 

4 2010 American Community Survey and every decennial 

5 census and American Community Survey thereafter, the 

6 Secretary of Commerce shall include, in any questionnaire 

7 distributed or otherwise used, the Katz basic activities of 

8 daily living scale and the Lawton-Brody instrumental ac9 tivities of daily living scale. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

April 8, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20568

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARKER ALLEN JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-567-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marker Allen Jones appeals from his conviction for armed

bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), (d), and 2,

and using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in

relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii), and 2. Jones argues that the district

court erred in not allowing him to present evidence in support

of his motion to suppress by holding a hearing pursuant to 

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). 
No. 03-20568

-2-

This court reviews the denial of a Franks hearing de novo. 

United States v. Martin, 332 F.3d 827, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Jones has not made the preliminary showing required to establish

entitlement to a Franks hearing. United States v. Brown,

298 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1134

(2003). 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KIWANII EDWARD MOSLEY, Ghost,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00058-RAJ-FBS-3;

2:20-cv-00130-RAJ)

Submitted: July 22, 2021 Decided: August 10, 2021

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kiwanii Edward Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kiwanii Edward Mosley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Mosley’s informal brief, we

conclude that Mosley has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny as moot Mosley’s 

motion seeking permission to file a motion for compassionate release with the district 

court, and dismiss the appeal. 
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 16

- 00507

- CV

IN RE RYDER INTEGRAT ED LOGISTICS, INC. and Ryder Integrated Logistics of Texas,

LLC

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 17, 2016

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 8, 2016 R elator s filed a petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion

to stay. The court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that

R elator s are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and

motion for stay are denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding ar ises out of Cause No. 2010

- CI

- 03779, styled Denise Molina and George Duzane, Co

Conservators of Rafael “ Ralph ” Molina, and Rafael “ Ralph ” Molina v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., Ryder

Integrated Logistics of Texas, LLC and Ernesto Solis, Lucila Solis, Sonia Martin Solis, Elija Angel Solis, a nd Roberto

Solis, Jr., Legal Heirs of the Estate of Ro b erto Solis, Sr. , pending in the 166th Judi cial District Court, Bexar County,

Texas, the Honorable Michael E. Mery presiding.
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 49 Att. 10

Dockets.Justia.com
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**





**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 Audit of Golden Phoenix Minerals, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Amendment No. 1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
      the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.
      Amendment No. 1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934; and





2.
      The
      information contained Amendment No. 1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form
      10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operation of the Company.




Date:
        January 18, 2006




/s/
      Kenneth S. Ripley


Kenneth
      S. Ripley


Interim
      Chief Executive Officer





/s/
      Larry A. Kitchen


Principal
      Financial Officer





31.1-1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN DARNELL RAGLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN KERR, NICOLAS SMISSICK,

MICHAEL RABY and KEITH BIRBERICK,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 08-15253

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Order entered on January 10, 2012, judgment is

entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.

DAVID WEAVER

Dated: January 10, 2012 By: s/Julie Owens 

 Deputy Clerk

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Kevin Ragland, 

191565, Cotton Correctional Facility, 3510 N. Elm Street, Jackson, MI 49201 and the

attorneys of record on this date, January 10, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160 

2:08-cv-15253-AC-MAR Doc # 138 Filed 01/10/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1317
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 17, 2010 | /s/ Bennet P.Tchaikovsky                         |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|               | Bennet      P. Tchaikovsky                       |
|               | Chief      Financial Officer                     |
|               | (Principal      Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

----
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Brandon C. DABBS, Appellant. Brandon C. DABBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 50829, WD 52025.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 17, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 28, 1997.

Application to Transfer Denied March 25, 1997.

Rosemary E. Percival, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from conviction of one count of second degree assault, § 565.060, and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015, as well as denial of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  	5
<CIK>	0000914670
<NAME>	Correctional Services Corporation

       
<S>		                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>	                                               YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                  1,735,639
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          22,045,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       27,830,266
<PP&E>                                                 29,500,664
<DEPRECIATION>                                          1,847,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         66,636,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  16,670,785
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                   77,923
<OTHER-SE>                                             37,922,368
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           66,636,561
<SALES>                                                97,928,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       97,928,498
<CGS>	                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       99,149,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        693,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (1,914,527)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             (755,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (1,158,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        (4,863,380)
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (6,022,207)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              ($0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              ($0.78)
        



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated March 7, 2003, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements of Correctional Services Corporation and Subsidiaries that
are included in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statement of Correctional Services Corporation and Subsidiaries on
Form S-8, Registration No. 333-76353, effective April 15, 1999, and Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-16537, effective November 21, 1996.

                                                /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP



Tampa, Florida
March 7, 2003
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF SPHERION CORPORATION

Following is a list of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Spherion Corporation, a Delaware corporation. Certain inactive subsidiaries have been excluded from the list below as such subsidiaries, when considered in the aggregate as one subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary. All active subsidiaries do business under their corporate name listed below, or close derivatives thereof, except where indicated otherwise:

6063721 Canada Inc.
     CanadaComtex Information Systems, Inc.
     DelawareHuman Resource Capital Group Inc.
     CanadaIMARK/TSRC Management Corp.
     DelawareIMRC, Inc.
     NevadaIntelliMark Holdings, Inc.
     DelawareNorCross Holdings LLC
     DelawareNorCross Teleservices L.P.
     DelawareNorrell Corporation
     DelawareSpherion Assessment Inc.
     North CarolinaSpherion Atlantic Enterprises LLC *
     DelawareSpherion Atlantic Resources LLC *
     DelawareSpherion (Europe) Inc.
     DelawareSpherion Financial Corporation
     DelawareSpherion Government Services LLC
     DelawareSpherion Operations Inc.
     DelawareSpherion Staffing LLC**
     DelawareSpherion Technology (UK) Limited
     United KingdomSpherion U.S. Inc.
     FloridaSpherion Worldwide Holding B.V.
     NetherlandsTechnisource, Inc.
     Delaware


*
     Also do business as:NorrellThe Mergis GroupTodays StaffingTodays Office Professionals**
     Also does business as:Norrell




---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 09-11249

Honorable David M. Lawson

MPC INVESTORS, LLC, DOMINIC MOCERI, 

GERALD CARNAGO, FRANCIS V MOCERI,

MARIANO MOCERI, PETER K BURTON, 

ROBERT M KATZMAN, LAURENCE R GOSS,

STEVEN BENTLEY, SALVATORE J 

PALAZZOLO, SEBASTIAN D PALAZZOLO,

GREGORY A CARNAGO, and DOMINIC J. 

MOCERI,

Defendants, ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION

v. OF JUDGMENT AND TO QUASH

SUBPOENA FOR TAKING OF

CHARLES SCHWAB AND COMPANY, CREDITOR’S EXAM

INCORPORATED, BANK OF AMERICA, NA,

AND PIERCE FENNER MERRILL LYNCH,

Garnishee defendants,

and

GREGORY A CARNAGO and GERALD CARNAGO,

Cross-Claimants,

v.

LAURENCE R GOSS, STEVEN BENTLY,

SALVATORE J PALAZZOLO, SEBASTIAN D

PALAZZOLO, PETER K BURTON, and ROBERT M

KATZMAN,

Cross-Defendants

_______________________________________________/

2:09-cv-11249-DML-MKM Doc # 512 Filed 11/23/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 2082
-2-

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION OF

JUDGMENT AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR TAKING OF CREDITOR’S EXAM

Presently before the Court is a motion by defendants Salvatore J. Palazzolo and Sebastian

D. Palazzolo for entry of satisfaction of judgment and to quash a subpoena for the taking of a

creditor’s exam. In this district, movants must seek concurrence in the relief requested before filing

a motion or request with this Court. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). If concurrence is obtained, the parties

then may present a stipulated order to the Court. If concurrence is not obtained, Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)

requires that the moving party state in the motion that “there was a conference between the attorneys

. . . in which the movant explained the nature of the motion and its legal basis and requested but did

not obtain concurrence in the relief sought [ ] or . . . despite reasonable efforts specified in the

motion, the movant was unable to conduct a conference.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a)(2). 

The defendants do not state in their motion that concurrence was sought from the plaintiff

before filing the motion. “It is not up to the Court to expend its energies when the parties have not

sufficiently expended their own.” Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 168 F.R.D. 99, 101 (D. Mass. 1996).

The defendants have filed their motion in violation of the applicable rules.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for entry of satisfaction of

judgment and to quash subpoena for taking of creditor’s exam [dkt. #511] is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: November 23, 2011

2:09-cv-11249-DML-MKM Doc # 512 Filed 11/23/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2083
-3-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on November 23, 2011.

s/Deborah R. Tofil 

DEBORAH R. TOFIL

2:09-cv-11249-DML-MKM Doc # 512 Filed 11/23/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 2084
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3859 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3859

 To amend section 1848 of the Social Security Act to extend for 1 year 
   the treatment of certain practice relative value units under the 
           medicare payment system for physicians' services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 1996

   Mr. Whitfield (for himself and Mr. Hall of Texas) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 1848 of the Social Security Act to extend for 1 year 
   the treatment of certain practice relative value units under the 
           medicare payment system for physicians' services.

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

SECTION 1. 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PRACTICE RELATIVE 
              VALUE UNITS UNDER THE MEDICARE RB-RVS PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR 
              PHYSICIANS' SERVICES.

    Paragraphs (2)(C)(ii) and (3)(C)(ii) of section 1848(c) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(c)) are amended by striking 
``1998'' and inserting ``1999'' each place it appears.
                                 <all>
```
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3952

To clarify that certain components of certain scientific instruments and

apparatus shall be provided duty-free treatment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 1996

Mr. WALKER (for himself, Mr. BROWN of California, Mr. SENSENBRENNER,

Mr. BOEHLERT, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mr.

ROHRABACHER, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. CALVERT, Mr.

BAKER of California, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. EHLERS, Mr.

STOCKMAN, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. LARGENT, Mrs. SEASTRAND, Mr.

CRAMER, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. MCHALE, and Mr. GORDON) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To clarify that certain components of certain scientific instruments and apparatus shall be provided duty-free

treatment.

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

3 SECTION 1. DUTY FREE TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN COMPO4 NENTS OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS AND

5 APPARTUS.

6 U.S. Note 6 of subchapter X of chapter 98 of the

7 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is
2

•HR 3952 IH

1 amended in subdivision (a) be adding at the end the fol2 lowing new sentence: ‘‘The term ‘instruments and appara3 tus’ under subheading 9810.00.60 includes separable com4 ponents of an instrument or apparatus listed in this sub5 division that are imported for assembly in the United

6 States in such instrument or apparatus in a case in which

7 the instrument or apparatus, due to its size and complex8 ity, cannot be imported in its assembled state.’’.

9 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS OF REGULATIONS.

10 The Secretary of the Treasury shall make such modi11 fications to regulations as are necessary to carry out sec12 tion 1.

Æ
#### Alfred MAYES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66837.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 29, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 17, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 21, 1995.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court dismissed defendant’s motion because he faded to file it within ninety days after he was delivered to the custody of the Department of Corrections as provided in Rule 24.035(b). The court’s finding and conclusion is not clearly erroneous, and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).