alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 4567** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. PANFILO BAUTISTA

- MARCIAL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00383

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : January 22 , 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North C arolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Panfilo Bautista

- Marcial pled guilty to transferring false identification documents and possession of five or more false identification documents. The district court sentenced him to 37 months’ imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrently. Bautista

- Marcial’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’ s view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Bautista

- Marcial’s sentence was reasonable. Bautista

- Marcial was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We have reviewed Bautista

- Marcial’s sentence and conclude that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed was reasonable. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Llamas , 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010). The district court followed the necessary procedu ral steps in sentencing Bautista

- Marcial , approp riately treated the Sentencing G uidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the applicable G uidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors in l ight of Bautista

- Marcial’s individual characteristics and history
. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall , 552 U.S. at 41;3 United States v. Allen , 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007) (appl ying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within
G uidelines sentence). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requ ires that counsel inform Bautista

Marcial , in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bautista

- Marcial requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Bautista

Marcial
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRME D
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January

23 , 2020
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 19

- 00788

- CR

BILLY JOE DAVIS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Austin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19CR

- 35320

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Billy Joe Davis has signed and filed a written motion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant
Do Not Publish

– Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6623 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6623

  To designate the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force in 
 Pooler, Georgia, as the official National Museum of the Mighty Eighth 
        Air Force in the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2022

Mr. Carter of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Mast, Mr. Clyde, Mrs. Hartzler, 
  Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. 
  Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Rice of South Carolina, and Mr. Smith of New 
   Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air Force in 
 Pooler, Georgia, as the official National Museum of the Mighty Eighth 
        Air Force in the United States, 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. NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE MIGHTY EIGHTH AIR FORCE.

    (a) Designation.--The National Museum of the Mighty Eighth Air 
Force located at 175 Bourne Avenue, Pooler, Georgia (or any successor 
location), is designated as the official National Museum of the Mighty 
Eighth Air Force of the United States (referred to in this section as 
the ``National Museum'').
    (b) Relation to National Park System.--The National Museum shall 
not be included as a unit of the National Park System.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--This section shall not be construed to 
appropriate, or authorize the appropriation of, Federal funds for any 
purpose related to the National Museum.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES W. COATES and KAREEN COATES, his wife,

Appellants,

v.

BENNETT AUTO SUPPLY, INC., and HONEYWELL 

INTERNATIONAL, INC,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-1533

[October 11, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Carol-Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 16-

000139.

Charles S. Siegel and Charles P. Stern of Waters & Kraus, LLP, Dallas, 

Texas, and Rebecca S. Vinocur of Rebecca S. Vinocur, P.A., Coral Gables, 

for appellants.

Jack R. Reiter of GrayRobinson, P.A., Miami, and Anthony N. Upshaw 

and Caroline M. Iovino of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Miami, for appellee 

Honeywell International, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


     <ARTICLE> 5
     <LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
     OF J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1998, AND
     IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
     </LEGEND>
     <MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

     <S>                             <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
     <PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
     <CASH>                                             552
     <SECURITIES>                                     1,032
     <RECEIVABLES>                                    3,658
     <ALLOWANCES>                                        85
     <INVENTORY>                                      7,017
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,321
     <PP&E>                                           8,599
     <DEPRECIATION>                                   3,267
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,529
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,169
     <BONDS>                                          6,737
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
     <PREFERRED>                                        483
     <COMMON>                                         2,877
     <OTHER-SE>                                       4,061
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,529
     <SALES>                                         20,613
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,362
     <CGS>                                           15,065
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,745
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   365
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                   167
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 452
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                                    633
     <INCOME-TAX>                                       246
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                387
     <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
     <CHANGES>                                            0
     <NET-INCOME>                                       387
     <EPS-BASIC>                                     1.42
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.42



</TABLE>
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Effective March 17, 2014 
 Ali Fattaey,
Ph.D. 
 [Address 1] 
 [Address 2] 

Dear Ali: 
 Reference is hereby made to that
certain Employment Agreement dated as of February 19, 2013, by and between Curis, Inc. (the “Company”) and you (the “Employee”) (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. 
 Now therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the undersigned parties agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3.6 Relocation and
Commuting Expenses of the Agreement is hereby revised such that the dollar amount of “$50,000” in the third line of such Section 3.6(a) is hereby deleted in its entirety and the dollar amount of “$70,000” is hereby inserted
in lieu thereof. 
 2. The Agreement, as supplemented and modified by this letter, together with the other writings referred to in the
Agreement or delivered pursuant thereto which form a part thereof, contains the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof and amends, restates and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous arrangements or
understandings with respect thereto. 
 3. Upon the effectiveness of this letter, on and after the date thereof, each reference in the
Agreement to “this Agreement,” “hereunder,” “hereof,” “herein” or words of like import, and each reference in the other documents entered into in connection with the Agreement, shall mean and be a reference to
the Agreement, as amended hereby. Except as specifically amended above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed. 

4. This letter shall be construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without regard
to any choice of law principle that would dictate the application of the law of another jurisdiction. 








 Letter to Ali Fattaey, Ph.D. 

Effective March 17, 2014 
  Page
 2
 
  

 5. This letter may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each such counterpart shall
be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts together shall constitute but one agreement. 
 Please sign below to
acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing terms. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	CURIS, INC.
	
	/s/ Michael P. Gray
	
	  

	Michael P. Gray
	Chief Financial Officer and Chief Business Officer
	
	Date: March 24, 2014


  

	
	Agreed and acknowledge as of the date set forth below.
	
	/s/ Ali Fattaey, Ph.D.
	
	  

	Ali Fattaey, Ph.D.
	President and COO
	
	Date: March 24, 2014


  
 -2-
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 173 (Friday, September 5, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[TD 9417]
RIN 1545-BE39


Farmer and Fisherman Income Averaging; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects final and temporary regulations (TD 
9417) that were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, July 22, 
2008 (73 FR 42522) relating to the averaging of farm and fishing income 
in computing income tax liability.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Pfalzgraf, (202) 622-4960 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final and temporary regulations (TD 9417) that are the subject 
of this correction are under section 1301 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, TD 9417 contains an error that may prove to be 
misleading and is in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the publication of the final and temporary regulations 
(TD 9417), which were the subject of FR Doc. E8-16665, is corrected as 
follows:
    On page 42522, column 2, in the preamble, under the caption ``For 
Further Information Contact'', line 2, the language ``Amy Pfalzgraf, 
(202) 622-4950 (not a`` is corrected to read ``Amy Pfalzgraf (202) 622-
4960 (not a ``.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E8-20555 Filed 9-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 6, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00921

- CV

IN RE Maryvel SUDAY , Relator

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On October 16, 2023 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On October 23, 2023

, the real party in interest filed a response. On October 24, 2023, relator filed a “Motion for Emergency Relief Pending a Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” Relator then filed a “F irst Supplement” to the motion for emergency relief. After considering the petition, the response, and all exhibits attached thereto, this court concludes relator has not shown herself to be entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a) . Furthermore, relator’s motion for emergency relief is denied

.

It is so ORDERED on December 6, 2023

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 6th day of December, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 3625CCL , styled Jesus L. Suday v. Olga Tamez de Suday , pending in the County Court

, Val Verde County, Texas, the Honorable Stephen B. Ables presiding.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of THE POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/    Jeffrey D. SerkesJeffrey D. Serkes Principal Financial Officer




January 23, 2004
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-10533

_______________________

In The Matter of: WILLIAM HAROLD COLLUM,

doing business as Harold Collum Co.; 

MATTIE MERELYNE COLLUM,

Debtors.

WILLIAM HAROLD COLLUM; MATTIE MERELYNE COLLUM,

Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (IRS),

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:91-CV-1247-P)

_________________________________________________________________

April 12, 1996

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has considered carefully the taxpayers’

contention that no taxable disposition of their property to

Interwest occurred in 1987. Taking all the facts into

consideration, particularly the two-year duration of the transfer

to Interwest and the company’s assumption of the debtors’ primary
2

liability to the savings and loan associations, we cannot conclude

that the bankruptcy or district courts erred in deciding that a

taxable transfer occurred. There is no persuasive basis for

holding that under Texas law Interwest held the property in

constructive trust for the debtors. Further, this is not a case in

which the taxable form of a transaction ought to give way to its

substance -- the substance of a taxable disposition existed here.

For essentially the reasons articulated by them, the

judgments of the district and bankruptcy courts are AFFIRMED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00614

- CR

Ex p arte Kelly James McCarty

FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY
NO. 30842D , THE HONORABLE J. ALLAN GARRETT , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant Kell y Ja mes McCarty , r epresenting himself pro se , filed a notice of

appeal from the district court ’ s o rder denying his application for writ of habeas corpus

.

McCarty ’ s brief on appeal was originally due April 20, 2 022 , but on M cCarty ’ s m otions , the

time for fi ling was extended to July 20, 2022

. After this deadline passed, McCar ty fi led a

fourth motion for extension of time, reque sting an extension to September 6, 2022. T o date,

McCarty ’ s pro se brief has not been filed

.

W e order appellant to file his pro se bri ef no later than No vember 7 , 2022

. No

further extension will be gr anted . I f the brief is not filed by that date, the appeal may be

submitted on the record alone. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4).

It is ordered on October 14, 2022

.

Before Justices Goodw in, Baker, an d Kelly

D o Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      20
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                             9150
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          9170
<PP&E>                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            9170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                  9145
<OTHER-SE>                                  10
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              9155
<SALES>                                    458
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           458
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            44
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        414
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                               414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .27
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2015

p1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2015

147727(84)

DANNY EPPS and JOYCE EPPS,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees/

Cross

- Appellants,

v SC: 147727

COA: 305731

Wayne CC: 09

- 018323

- NO

4 QUARTERS RESTORATION, L.L.C.,

DENAGLEN CORP., d/b/a MBM CHECK

CASHING, EMERGENCY INSURANCE

SERVICES, and TROY WILLIS,

Defendants

- Appellants/

Cross

- Appellees,

and

AM ADJUSTING & APPRAISALS, L.L.C.,

MICHAEL N. AND ERSON, JR., HOME

OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PAULA

MATHEWS, MAXIMUM RESTORATION,

L.L.C., AUTO OWNERS INSURANCE

COMPANY, CHARLES WILLIS, and

COMERICA BANK,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the bill of costs and the motion for taxation of costs in the

Court of Appeals are DENIED, a public question being involved.
| **$100,000.00** | **November 1, 2004** |
|-----------------|----------------------|

----

----

|   | (a)    | waive demand, presentment, protest, notice      of protest, notice of dishonor, diligence in collection, notice of nonpayment      and all notices of a like nature; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   | (b)    | to (i) the release, surrender, exchange or      substitution of all or any part of the security for the indebtedness evidenced      by this Note, or the taking of any additional security, (ii) the release      of any or all other persons from liability, whether primary or contingent,      for the indebtedness evidenced by this Note or for any related obligations,      and (iii) the granting of any other indulgences to any such person. |

----

----

----

----

|   | DIAYSYS CORPORATION                                                |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                               |
|   |                                                               |
|   | By: S/ JEFFREY B. AARONSON                                    |
|   |       Jeffrey B. Aaronson,      President |
|   |                                                               |