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

No. 20
- 6524

RAJUL RUHBAYAN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. REBECCA BEACH SMITH, Judge; ROBERT B. KING, Judge; ALLYSON K. DUNCAN, Judge; WILLIAM W. WILKENS, Judge; DAVID LEU, Warden , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. ( 5:20

- ct

- 03115

- BO )

Submitted : October 26, 2020 Decided: November 17, 2020

Before WYNN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Rajul Ruhbayan , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rajul Ruhbayan appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed eral Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ruhbayan v. Smith , No. 5:20

- ct

- 03115

- BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 2020)

. We deny Ruhbayan’s
motio n to suspend proceedings. 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.
AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No.5-cr-215-01-B

Christopher Stallings, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the February 7, 2006

trial in the above case. Defendant cites the need for additional

time to investigate this matter, prepare for trial or complete

plea negotiations. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

for negotiations and/or properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from February 7, 2006 to May 2, 2006. 

In agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 19 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 2
2

A final pretrial will be held on April 21, 2006 at 3:45pm.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

Chief Judge

January 30, 2006

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Paul Pappas, Esq.

Donald Feith, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00215-PB Document 19 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1001

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make optional the requirement that a State seek adjustment or recovery from an individual’s

estate of any medical assistance correctly paid on behalf of the individual

under the State Medicaid plan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 13, 2001

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make

optional the requirement that a State seek adjustment

or recovery from an individual’s estate of any medical

assistance correctly paid on behalf of the individual

under the State Medicaid plan.

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

3 SECTION 1. MAKING MEDICAID ESTATE RECOVERY OP4 TIONAL.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1917(b)(1) of the Social

6 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)) is amended by strik-
2

•HR 1001 IH

1 ing ‘‘shall seek’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘may

2 seek’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact5 ment of this Act. A State (as defined for purposes of title

6 XIX of the Social Security Act) may apply such amend7 ments to estates and sales occurring at such earlier date

8 as the State may specify.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TREMAIN MOORE,

Defendant.

8:23-CR-117

ADOPTION OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION ON PLEA OF 

GUILTY

This matter is before the Court on the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation,

Filing 110, recommending that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. There are no objections 

to the findings and recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and NECrimR 11.2(d), 

the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation of the magistrate judge.

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation, Filing 110, is adopted; 

2. The defendant is found guilty. The plea is accepted. The Court finds that the plea of guilty 

is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that a factual basis exists for the plea; 

3. The Court defers acceptance of any plea agreement until it has reviewed the presentence 

report, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3); and

4. This case shall proceed to sentencing. 

Dated this 19th day of August, 2024.

BY THE COURT:  

_________________________

Brian C. Buescher 

United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00117-BCB-MDN Doc # 119 Filed: 08/19/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 221
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-022-01-PB

Richard Post

O R D E R

On February 19, 2013, the defendant appeared for an initial

appearance on a supervised release violation dated February 8,

2013. The defendant requested both a probable cause hearing

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(1) and requested a detention

hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6). 

At the hearing, the government adduced evidence through the

testimony of United States Probation Officer Chris Pingree, which

is incorporated by reference herein, to establish probable cause

to believe the defendant committed both of the violations listed

in the supervised release violation. 

On the issue of bail on a supervised release violation, the

defendant bears the burden of establishing by clear and

convincing evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no

danger to any other person or to the community. Fed. R. Crim. P.

32.1(a)(6). Based on the content of the supervised release

violation as well as the proffers and evidence presented at the

hearing, and for the reasons thoroughly stated on the record, the

court finds the defendant has failed to meet this burden and that

Case 1:06-cr-00022-PB Document 120 Filed 02/20/13 Page 1 of 2
there are no conditions that are likely to assure the safety of

the community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending a final revocation hearing. The final revocation hearing

is scheduled before Judge Barbadoro on March 25, 2013 at 10:30

am.

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Daniel J. Lynch

Daniel J. Lynch

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 20, 2013

cc: Counsel of Record

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

2

Case 1:06-cr-00022-PB Document 120 Filed 02/20/13 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:04-cv-00415-SM Document 1-1 Filed 11/04/04 Page 11 of 11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: M.A., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.A., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 308 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.A., A MINOR

PETITION OF: T.A., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 309 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2023, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal

are DENIED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: Larry Stanley and Terri Stanley v. John McClanahan Appellate case number: 01
- 1 3
- 00 982
- CV Trial court case number: D
- 13
- 5,197 Trial court: County Court of Colorado County In this forcible

- detainer action, appellants, Larry Stanley and Terry Stanley, have filed an “Emergency Motion to Stay Writ of Possession.” Appellants are not entitled to a stay in this case because they did not file a supersedeas bond wi thin 10 days of the county court’s judgment. See T EX . P ROP . C ODE A NN . § 24.007 (West Supp. 2013) (“A judgment of a county court in an eviction suit may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.” ); In re Campbell , No. 03
- 13
- 00712
- CV, 2013 WL 5878895, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Oct. 30, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“An appellate court may not stay the judgmen t unless a supersedeas bond in accordance with section 24.007 has been filed.”); Holmes v. Al Jaafreh , No. 10
- 11
- 00320
- CV, 2013 WL 2399059, at *1 n. 1 (Tex. App.

— Waco May 30, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting denial of emergency request to stay execution o f writ of possession because appellant failed to file supersedeas bond); Phillips v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. , No. 03
- 11
- 00461
- CV, 2012 WL 424875, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Feb. 1, 2012, order ) (denying emergency motion to stay execution of writ of possess ion because appellant did not post supersedeas bond in accordance with section 24.007) ; see also Wilhelm v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n , 349 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) ( “If a supersedeas bond in the amount set by the trial c ourt is not filed, the judgment in a forcible

detainer action may be enforced and a writ of possession may be executed evicting the defendant from the premises in question.” ). A ppellants’ motion is DENIED . 1 It is so ORDERED.

1 We note that appellants vacated the property on Novembe r 7, 2013, 12 days before they filed their emergency motion.Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley  Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: February 4, 2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADAM THOMAS,

Defendant.

8:23CR116

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 24). 

Government counsel was out of the district at mandatory training the week of August 12, 2024. 

Defense counsel will be in trial in Judge Buescher’s court beginning August 20, 2024. The 

parties need additional time to resolve the matter short for trial. For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 24) is granted as 

follows:

1. The jury trial now set for August 19, 2024, is continued to September 30, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of 

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a 

result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and 

September 30, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of 

time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a 

continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective 

preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

Dated the 16th day of August 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00116-RFR-MDN Doc # 25 Filed: 08/16/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 49
Exhibit 32.b



CERTIFICATION



I, Larry Bruce, Principal Financial Officer of Blink Logic Inc. (the Company), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) on the date hereof, that:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                    |  |                                                                          
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 20, 2009 |  | /s/Larry Bruce
Larry Bruce
Chief Financial Officer, Secretary & Treasurer
#### GEO. L. DUCROS TILE CO. v. FREY HOMES, Inc. et al.

No. 19804.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 2, 1951.

*355R. A. Dowling and Ed. J. DeVerges, New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellant.

Legier, McEnerny & Waguespack, New Orleans (Harry McEnerny, Jr., New Orleans, of counsel), for defendants and ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants-appellees move to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds that they were not served with citation of appeal, and that the transcript is incomplete and defective for the reason that certain documentary evidence is not included therein.

The first ground urged for the dismissal of the appeal must fall. Any failure to serve the appellees with citation of appeal is cured by their making appearance and urging the second ground for dismissing the appeal. Appellees must be held to have waived citation of appeal by asserting the other ground for dismissal. Phillips v. Phillips, 160 La. 813, 107 So. 584; Succession of Williams, 156 La. 704, 101 So. 113; Commercial National Bank v. Sanders, 132 La. 174, 61 So. 155; Succession of Baumgarden, 35 La.Ann. 127; Nicholson & Co. v. Jennings, 27 La.Ann. 432; Lee v. Goodrich, 21 La.Ann. 278; Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Mosley, La.App., 18 So.2d 210.

Six exhibits offered during the course of the trial by the appellees were not filed in the lower court until after the original transcript was lodged with us. Appellant has supplemented the transcript by presenting to and filing with us the certificate of the clerk of the trial court showing that the exhibits were filed in evidence and the clerk has indexed them and certifies that they are in the vault of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.

Under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13 :4433, an appellant may, before the day on which the motion to dismiss is fixed for trial, cure and correct any deficiency or informality in the transcript, and by the terms of art. 898, C.P., he is given the right, until the time of the argument, “to correct such errors or omissions”. It appearing that the transcript is complete, the second ground urged for dismissal is now without merit. The exhibits may be obtained by us whenever necessary. See Boland Mach. & Mfg. Co., Inc., v. Favret, La.App., 176 So. 401, 402; Murphy v. B. Mutti, Inc., La.App., 176 So. 402.

Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

Motion overruled.
## In the Court o f Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00403

- CV

C ARROLL I NDEPENDENT S CHOOL D ISTR ICT B OARD OF T RUSTEES ; M ICHELLE M OO RE
, I N HER CAPACITY

AS T RUSTEE AND P RESI DENT OF THE C ARR O LL I NDEPENDENT S CHO OL D ISTRICT B OARD OF T RUSTEES ; S HERI M ILLS
, IN HER CAPACITY AS T RUSTEE

OF THE C ARROLL I NDEPENDENT S CHOOL D ISTRICT B OARD OF T RUSTEES ; AND T ODD C AR LTON
, IN

HIS CAPACITY AS T RUSTEE OF THE C ARROLL I NDEP ENDEN T S CHOOL D ISTRICT B OARD OF T RUSTEE S
, Appellants

V

.

K RISTIN G ARCIA
, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 153rd District
Court

of Tarrant County ( 153

- 319405

- 20 )

October 14, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JU DGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in t his case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECOND DIS TRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell Justice Wade Birdwell
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to the 1933 Act
      Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-212682) and Amendment No. 696 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under
      individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    August 22, 2019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

TRAVIS SHAW, 

Defendant Below, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF DELAWARE, 

Appellee.

§ 

§ 

§ No. 417, 2022 

§ 

§ Court Below—Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware 

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 2103001697 (N) 

§ 

§

Submitted: May 4, 2023 

Decided: May 25, 2023 

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. 

ORDER

After consideration of the brief and motion to withdraw filed by the 

appellant’s counsel under Supreme Court Rule 26(c), the State’s response, and the 

record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: 

(1) On October 31, 2022, the appellant, Travis Shaw, pleaded guilty to 

resisting arrest. In exchange for the guilty plea, the State dismissed a charge of 

possession of ammunition by a person prohibited and other charges. The State also 

agreed to recommend a sentence of one year of imprisonment, suspended for Level 

III probation. At sentencing, Shaw’s counsel requested a lower level of probation; 

the Superior Court imposed the recommended sentence, with credit for ten days 

previously served. This is Shaw’s direct appeal. 
2

(2) On appeal, Shaw’s counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 

under Supreme Court Rule 26(c). Shaw’s counsel asserts that, based upon a 

conscientious review of the record and the law, the appeal is wholly without merit. 

In his statement filed under Rule 26(c), counsel indicates that he informed Shaw of 

the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided him with a copy of the motion to withdraw 

and the accompanying brief. Counsel also informed Shaw of his right to submit 

points he wanted this Court to consider on appeal. Shaw has not submitted any 

points for the Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the Rule 26(c) brief 

and argues that the Superior Court’s judgment should be affirmed. 

(3) When reviewing a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief 

under Rule 26(c), this Court must be satisfied that the appellant’s counsel has made 

a conscientious examination of the record and the law for arguable claims.1 This 

Court must also conduct its own review of the record and determine whether “the 

appeal is indeed so frivolous that it may be decided without an adversary 

presentation.”2

(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and concluded that the 

appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. We 

also are satisfied that counsel made a conscientious effort to examine the record and 

1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 

429, 442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 

2 Penson, 488 U.S. at 82. 
3

the law and properly determined that Shaw could not raise a meritorious claim on 

appeal. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to withdraw is moot. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Chief Justice
#### BUILDERS’ SUPPLY CO., Inc., v. LOREAUVILLE SUGAR FACTORY, Inc., et al.

No. 1359.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 3, 1934.

Burke & Smith, of New Iberia, for appellants.

Voorhies & Labbe, of Lafayette, for appel-lee.

LE BLANC, Judge.

For the reasons stated in the opinion this day handed down in the case of E. P. Folse v. Loreauville Sugar Factory, Inc. (La. App.) 156 So. 667, with which this case had been consolidated for the purpose of trial and submission, it is ordered that the judgment herein appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, at the costs of the appellants.
Case 1:05-cv-00274-PB Document 4 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1161

To authorize the American Friends of the Czech Republic to establish a

memorial to honor Tomas G. Masaryk in the District of Columbia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 22, 2001

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To authorize the American Friends of the Czech Republic

to establish a memorial to honor Tomas G. Masaryk

in the District of Columbia.

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The American Friends of the

5 Czech Republic is authorized to establish a memorial to

6 honor Tomas G. Masaryk on the Federal land in the Dis7 trict of Columbia described in subsection (b).

8 (b) LOCATION OF MEMORIAL.—The Federal land re9 ferred to in subsection (a) is the triangle of land in the

10 District of Columbia that is bordered by 19th Street, NW.,
2

•HR 1161 IH

1 H Street, NW., and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., and des2 ignated as plot number 30 in area II on the map num3 bered 869/86501 and dated May 1, 1986, and which is

4 located across H Street, NW., from the International

5 Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

6 (c) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMO7 RATIVE WORKS.—The establishment of the memorial shall

8 be in accordance with the Commemorative Works Act (40

9 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

10 (d) LIMITATION ON PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.—The

11 United States Government shall not pay any expense for

12 the establishment of the memorial.

Æ