alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-20244

Conference Calendar

__________________

CURTIS MACK LEWIS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS; M. BRUCE THALER,

Warden; JERRY G. BRISHER; JOHN DOE,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-CV-3276

- - - - - - - - - -

June 25, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Curtis Mack Lewis, #646507, appeals the dismissal of his

civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Lewis

contends that the district court erred in concluding that he had

not alleged that he was deprived of adequate medical care in

violation of the Eighth Amendment.
No. 96-20244

-2-

 Even if we liberally construe Lewis' complaint as alleging

an Eighth Amendment violation, the claim lacks merit. Lewis'

Eighth Amendment claim against the defendants in their official

capacities is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst

State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-101 (1984). 

Further, Lewis' claim against the defendants in their individual

capacities is equally unavailing because Lewis does not allege

personal involvement or a causal connection between their actions

and the alleged violation. See Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298,

303-04 (5th Cir. 1987).

 Lewis does not address on appeal his claim against the

correctional officers concerning the injury to his arm, and it is

deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff

Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action as frivolous. 

See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-33 (1992); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d). 

 The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. We previously warned Lewis in Lewis v. Collins, No.

95-20899 (5th Cir. Feb. 27, 1996), that further frivolous appeals

would invite the imposition of sanctions and cautioned him to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they did not raise

frivolous arguments. Lewis has not heeded this warning. 
No. 96-20244

-3-

Accordingly, Lewis is barred from filing any pro se, in forma

pauperis, civil appeal in this court, or any pro se, in forma

pauperis, initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to

this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission

of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the

clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are

directed to return to Lewis, unfiled, any attempted submission

inconsistent with this bar.

 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 *Title:*
                     Grants to States for Access and Visitation: State Child Access Program Survey. *OMB No.:*
                     0970-0204. *Description:*
                     On an annual basis, States must provide OCSE with data on programs that the Grants to States for Access and Visitation Program has funded. These program reporting requirements include, but are not limited to, the collection of data on the number of parents served, types of services delivered, program outcomes, client socio economic data, referrals sources, and other relevant data. 
                    ( print page 47194) *Respondents:*
                     State Child Access and Visitation Programs and State and/or local service providers. Annual Burden Estimates
Instrument
Number of respondents
Number of responses  per respondent
Average burden hours  per response
Total  burden hoursState Child Access Program Survey
314
1
15
4,710
 *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:*
                     4,710. *Additional Information:*
                     Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, 
                    *Attn:*
                     ACE Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be 4,710 identified by the title of the information collection. E-mail address: 
                    *infocollection@acf.hhs.gov.* *OMB Comment:*
                     OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following:  Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 
                    *Fax:*
                     202-395-6974, 
                    *Attn:*
                     Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. Dated: August 6, 2008. Janean Chambers, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. E8-18557 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
No. 12,677.

#### John Sealy vs. G. L. Hall et als.; R. B. Hawley & Co., Third Opponents.

An irregularity or want of notice of a rule for new trial is unimportant when the testimony brought up on the appeal supports the judgment sought to be set aside on the new trial.

APPEAL from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia. *Voorhies, J.*

*Foster & Broussard, Andrew Thorpe*and *T. H. Thorpe*for Third Opponents, Appellees.

*Walter J. Burke & Bro.*for Defendants, Appellants.

Argued and submitted December 27, 1897.

Opinion handed down January 24, 1898.

Rehearing refused March 7, 1898.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

The defendants appeal from the judgment decreeing opponents’ payment of a debt with privilege on certain appurtenances of a sugar mill.

There had been a previous judgment in the opponents’ favor, but in the enumeration of the appurtenances there was an omission. On *413the rule for new trial the court extended the description of the articles covered by the privilege so as to embrace all intended by the original judgment. No notice of the rule for new trial was given the defendants, and from the judgment on the new trial this appeal is taken.

It is insisted by defendants that the judgment can not be changed in any material respect except on a rule for a new trial, duly served on the parties in interest. It is claimed by the opponents that the defendant in execution is not entitled to notice, and that the judgment merely corrected an error and supplied that which it was intended to be incorporated in the original judgment.

The appeal brings up all the testimony on the trial and sustains the judgment rendered on the rule for new trial. The objection to the rule for the new trial is, therefore, of no importance, as our judgment must give effect to the testimony sustaining the opponents’ demand. Whipple vs. Hertzberger, 11 An. 475.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that-the judgment of the lower court be affirmed with costs.
#### COMBUSTION ENGINEERING COMPANY, Inc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 7983.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 18, 1938.

Sizer, Chambliss & Kefauver, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for petitioner.

Charles Fahy, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before HICKS and SIMONS, Circuit Judges, and NEVIN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent having appeared specially and objected to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition filed by petitioner on March 17, 1938, and the court being of opinion that the objection is well taken, it is ordered and adjudged that the petition be, and the same is, dismissed.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 454

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to complete construction of the

Hubbard Expressway in the vicinity of Youngstown, Ohio.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1995

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to complete construction of the Hubbard Expressway in the vicinity of

Youngstown, Ohio.

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

3 SECTION 1. HUBBARD EXPRESSWAY.

4 (a) PROJECT DESCRIPTION.—The Secretary of

5 Transportation shall carry out a highway project in the

6 vicinity of Youngstown, Ohio, to complete construction of

7 the Hubbard Expressway.

8 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is

9 authorized to be appropriated, out of the Highway Trust
2

•HR 454 IH

1 Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), to carry out

2 subsection (a) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.

3 (c) APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 23.—Funds authorized

4 by this section shall be available for obligation in the same

5 manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter

6 1 of title 23, United States Code; except that the Federal

7 share of the cost of the project under this section shall

8 be 80 percent and such funds shall remain available until

9 expended. Such funds shall not be subject to any obliga10 tion limitation.

Æ
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 30723 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JARIUS T. CARSON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:19

- CR

- 86

- 1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Jarius T. Carson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a conviction felon, and was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to 46 months of imprisonment and a three

- year term of supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court impermissibly delegated its judicial authority by imposing two special supervised release conditions requiring Carson to submit to any additional

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 5, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-30723 Document: 00515404796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2020No. 19

- 30723

2 substance abuse testing and to participate in a substance abuse program “as administered and approved” by the United States Probation Office. He concedes that our review is for plain error, because he did not object to the imposition of the conditions at sentencing.
To show reversible plain error, Carson must show a forfeited error that
is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). “The imposition of a sentence, including the terms and conditions of supervised release, is a core judicial function that cannot be delegated.” United States v. Fra nklin , 838 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although a district court can properly delegate “decisions as to the details of a condition of supervised release” to a probation officer, “a court impermissibly del egates judicial authority when it gives a probation officer authority to decide whether a defendant will participate in a treatment program.” Id . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the language of the disputed conditions requir es Cars on to submit to additional testing and to participate in a substance abuse program, with the details (“administered and approved”) to be left to the discretion of the probation office. This is not an impermissible judicial delegation. S ee Franklin , 838 F .3d at 568. Carson has not demonstrated plain error. See
Puckett , 556 U.S. at 135.
AFFIRMED. Case: 19-30723 Document: 00515404796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2020
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 498

For the relief of Jung Ja Golden.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Jung Ja Golden.

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

3 SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR JUNG JA

4 GOLDEN.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Jung Ja Golden shall be classified

6 as an immediate relative within the meaning of section

7 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

8 for purposes of approval of a relative visa petition filed

9 under section 204 of such Act by Jung Ja Golden and

10 the filing of an application for an immigrant visa or for

11 adjustment of status.
2

•HR 498 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Jung Ja Golden

2 enters the United States before the filing deadline speci3 fied in subsection (c), she shall be considered to have en4 tered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible,

5 be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of

6 the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the

7 enactment of this Act.

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the pe10 tition and the application for issuance of an immigrant

11 visa or the application for adjustment of status are filed

12 by Jung Ja Golden with appropriate fees within 2 years

13 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

14 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

15 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res16 idence to Jung Ja Golden, the Secretary of State shall

17 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, for the following

18 fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas available

19 under section 201(c)(1)(A) of the Immigration and

20 Nationality Act.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VENESSA SELDON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-13162

Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

vs. Mag. Michael Hluchaniuk

LEHMAN BROTHERS, INC., et al,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on April 14, 2010 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

 Chief Judge, United States District Court

This matter having come before the Court on the March 15, 2010 Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk

recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment; and no

timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation having been

filed; and the Court having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, and the Court’s file of this action and having concluded that, for the

reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied;

and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,
NOW, THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation of March 15, 2010 [Dkt. # 26] be, and hereby is, adopted by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and

Recommendation, Plaintiff Vanessa Seldon’s Motion for Default Judgment [Dkt. # 10] is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Gerald E. Rosen 

Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: April 14, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and

plaintiff on April 14, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A.Gunther 

Case Manager

(313) 234-5137
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00661-CR

Elias Gaitan a/k/a Elias Gaitan Jr.

v.

The State Of Texas

On appeal from the

357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014-DCR-955-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 10, 2016.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000915661
<NAME>                         PARAMARK ENTERPRISES, INC.

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                             122,561
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      393,108
<ALLOWANCES>                        64,000
<INVENTORY>                        234,822
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   721,782
<PP&E>                             539,841
<DEPRECIATION>                      86,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,651,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            1,400,960
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            30,702
<OTHER-SE>                         150,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,651,745
<SALES>                          3,678,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 3,878,381
<CGS>                            3,043,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    5,327,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     1,760
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   8,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (1,456,745)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,456,745)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     80,088
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                   (1,376,657)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.45)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7059

NORMAN KEVIN WILKERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir. of VDOC,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent.

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

Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00396-RBS-RJK)

Submitted: December 13, 2017 Decided: January 19, 2018

Before KEENAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norman Kevin Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, 
2

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Norman Kevin Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district 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. See 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 demonstrating 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 MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district 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 have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilkerson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the pending motions, and dismiss the appeal. 

 ∗ Wilkerson has also filed a supplemental notice of appeal from the magistrate 

judge’s earlier order denying his motion for release pending review. We may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, of the 

district court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012). Except when a magistrate judge acts 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012), we lack jurisdiction over appeals from a magistrate 

judge’s order. See United States v. Baxter, 19 F.3d 155, 156-57 (4th Cir. 1994).
4

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
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 Quarterly Report of FLM Minerals Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Xin Chen, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:





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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 9th day of July, 2010








XIN CHENXin ChenChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer