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

                    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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration  

          - [TA-W-63,668]  

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on July 10, 2008, in response to a worker petition filed by an AFL-CIO official on behalf of workers of R.D. Reeves Construction, Inc. employed on-site at Longview Timber, Longview, Washington.  

The petitioner is not an authorized representative of the group of workers covered by this petition, rendering this petition invalid. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.  

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of August 2008.  

Richard Church,  

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-20350 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]  

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Opinion filed August 3, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-17-00182-CR

___________

JOSHUA WALTER GOSSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 27272A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Joshua Walter Gosson, Appellant, has filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal 

from a conviction for the offense of possession of methamphetamine. We dismiss 

the appeal. 

The documents on file in this case indicate that Appellant’s sentence was

imposed on May 10, 2017, and that his notice of appeal was filed in the district 
2

clerk’s office on June 29, 2017. When the appeal was filed in this court, we notified 

Appellant by letter that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the 

appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We also noted that the trial court 

had certified this was a plea-bargain case and that Appellant had waived his right to 

appeal. We requested that Appellant respond to our letter and show grounds to 

continue. Appellant has not filed a response. 

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a), a notice of appeal is due to be filed either 

(1) within thirty days after the date that sentence is imposed in open court or (2) if 

the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, within ninety days after the date 

that sentence is imposed in open court. A notice of appeal must be in writing and 

filed with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on 

file in this court reflect that Appellant did not file a motion for new trial and that 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the trial court fifty days after

sentence was imposed. The notice of appeal was, therefore, untimely. 

Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of a timely motion for 

extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Slaton v. 

State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 

522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1993). Neither a notice of appeal nor a motion for extension were filed within

the fifteen-day period permitted by TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.

Moreover, the trial court’s certification reflects that this is a plea-bargain case 

and that Appellant has no right of appeal. Thus, even if Appellant had timely 

perfected an appeal, the appeal would have been prohibited by TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2, 

which provides that an appellate court must dismiss an appeal without further action 

when there is no certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal. 
3

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006); see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

August 3, 2017

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4859

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

FRANK E. SPAULDING, a/k/a Khalif Immanuel Bey, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:08-cr-00018-JBF-FBS-1) 

Submitted: April 13, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Frank E. Spaulding, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Kosky, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Frank E. Spaulding, also known as Khalif Immanuel Bey, 

appeals his jury conviction and eighteen-month sentence for 

theft of public property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 

(2006), and making a false statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1001(a)(2) (2006). Spaulding, proceeding pro se, raises 

several claims that he contends require that his conviction be 

vacated, including that: (i) as an “Aboriginal, Indigenous and 

Freehold Inhabitant and Moorish-American National,” the district 

court lacked jurisdiction over him; (ii) the district court 

unlawfully referred to him by his birth name during the 

proceedings; (iii) the investigator who testified at his trial 

perjured himself; (iv) the “authorized representative” never 

entered a plea at Spaulding’s arraignment; and (v) the 

Government slandered him when it gave information to a local 

newspaper that incorrectly stated the value of the property he 

stole. 

 We have considered Spaulding’s arguments and have 

thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. United 

States v. Spaulding, No. 2:08-cr-00018-JBF-FBS-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 

27, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2 
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7077

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HARRY RAMONE BAPTISTE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:99-cr-00059-RLV-1)

Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Ramone Baptiste, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Harry Ramone Baptiste appeals a district court order 

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c) (2006). We affirm. Because the amendment in question 

did not lower Baptiste’s Guidelines sentence, we find the 

district did not abuse its discretion denying the motion. 

United States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) 

(stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Laurence A.
Schiffer, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(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.



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
---------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)     November 9, 2010


*A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company
 and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities
 and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR D. MOBLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-2111

RICHARD RUDEZ; HENRY PANKIE;

JOHN BAKER; DANIEL KAHN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-1685-HAR)

Submitted: November 26, 1996

Decided: January 21, 1997

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Arthur D. Mobley, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his

civil action. Appellant's complaint sought damages for alleged conduct by his supervisors and others at the United States Postal Service

whose actions he claims forced him into disability retirement. The

district court dismissed Appellant's complaint on its own motion

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We vacate and remand for further consideration.

A court may, on its own initiative, dismiss a civil complaint for

failing to state a claim. 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 301 (2d ed. 1990). In such

situations, however, notice and an opportunity to be heard are normally required. E.g., Ricketts v. Midwest Nat'l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177,

1184-85 (7th Cir. 1989). Although this Court has not directly

addressed the notice issue in the context of a sua sponte dismissal

under Rule 12(b)(6), we have held that notice and an opportunity to

be heard are required, regardless of the merits, prior to a sua sponte

summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. United States Dev.

Corp. v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 873 F.2d 731, 736 (4th Cir.

1989).

Because Appellant did not receive notice of the district court's

intention to enter a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, we vacate the judgment

of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent

with this opinion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
#### In the Matter of Chantee Green, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Appellants.

[806 NYS2d 581]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 17, 2005, which, in this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, directed a hearing as to the propriety of the challenged determination by respondent terminating petitioner’s employment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition denied insofar as it challenges petitioner’s termination, and the matter remanded for further proceedings in connection with petitioner’s third cause of action seeking a name-clearing hearing.

*353The petitioner, a probationary employee at the time of the events in question, may be discharged without a hearing and for no stated reason so long as there is no demonstration that the dismissal was accomplished in bad faith or for an impermissible reason *(see Matter of Swinton v Safir,*93 NY2d 758 [1999]; *Matter of York v McGuire,*63 NY2d 760, 761 [1984]). The record shows that after receiving a complaint and conducting an investigation, respondent found that petitioner had verbally and physically assaulted another Housing Authority employee. While petitioner claims that she merely became involved in a loud argument, she has shown no more than that respondent’s determination may have been mistaken; she has not raised any factual issue as to whether it was made in bad faith *(see Matter of Hernandez v City of White Plains,*301 AD2d 523 [2003]).

We remand for a determination of whether petitioner is entitled to a name-clearing hearing, relief sought in petitioner’s third cause of action, which was not addressed by Supreme Court. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
*Release Date: December 31, 2002*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

----

```
B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
```

| Year | Estimated volume (billions of dollars) | Share of outstanding real estate farm loans (percent) |
|------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 47   | 1                                      | 5                                                     | 29 | 12 | .268 | .004 | .027 | .157 | .067 |
| 44   | 7                                      | 11                                                    | 16 | 10 | .232 | .038 | .058 | .079 | .049 |
| 24   | 2                                      | 4                                                     | 7 | 11 | .121 | .010 | .018 | .035 | .054 |
| 10   | 1                                      | 1                                                     | 3 | 6 | .048 | .003 | .003 | .013 | .026 |
| 12   | 0                                      | 3                                                     | 6 | 4 | .055 | -.001 | .011 | .027 | .016 |
| 7    | 0                                      | 1                                                     | 2 | 4 | .031 | .000 | .003 | .009 | .017 |
| 16   | -1                                     | 0                                                     | 3 | 14 | .064 | -.003 | -.001 | .010 | .054 |
| 6    | -1                                     | 3                                                     | 0 | 5 | .022 | -.004 | .009 | .000 | .016 |
| 15   | 0                                      | 3                                                     | 5 | 7 | .051 | -.001 | .011 | .015 | .022 |
| 12   | -12                                    | 3                                                     | 8 | 14 | .037 | -.037 | .009 | .022 | .040 |
| 42   | 10                                     | 9                                                     | 5 | 17 | .123 | .030 | .027 | .014 | .049 |
| n.a. | 8                                      | 6                                                     | 5 | n.a. | n.a. | .022 | .017 | .014 | n.a. |
```
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (1 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1301 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1301

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply the capital gains 
   tax rates to capital gains earned by designated settlement funds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

  Mr. Crane introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply the capital gains 
   tax rates to capital gains earned by designated settlement funds.

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

SECTION 1. CAPITAL GAINS TAX RATES APPLIED TO CAPITAL GAINS OF 
              DESIGNATED SETTLEMENT FUNDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 468B(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to taxation of designated settlement 
funds) is amended by inserting ``(subject to section 1(h))'' after 
``maximum rate''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEADROY WILLIAMS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D 1 8

- 1725

[ September 27, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.85 0 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Thomas Michael Lynch , V

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 0 0

- 003844

- CF

- 10 B

.
Steadroy Williams

, South Bay , pro se

.
No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

L EVINE , C ONNER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. 05-cr-174-01-SM

Kelly Guay

ORDER

Re: Document No. 05-cr-174-01-SM, United States v. Kelly

Guay

Ruling: Denied. Defendant’s motion (by letter) for transcript

copies, presumably free of charge, is necessarily denied. There

is no appeal pending and no showing by defendant of a need for

transcript copies, and, finally, transcripts were not ordered and

have not been prepared. Absent some plausible need, transcripts

are not provided free of charge. Defendant may, of course, order

(and pay for) transcripts directly from the court reporter(s). 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: December 21, 2006

cc: Kelly Guay, pro se

Case 1:05-cr-00174-SM Document 25 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023458
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND XXII LTD PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,932,914
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,941,292
<PP&E>                                      12,000,590
<DEPRECIATION>                               (327,953)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,613,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          378,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,235,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,613,929
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               603,460
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  259,222
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                672,210
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            672,210
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   672,210
<EPS-BASIC>                                      38.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    38.81



</TABLE>
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1          Q2          Q3          Q4          Total
________________________________________________________________________________

1981......    |             1           0           0           0              1
1982......    |             2           3           3           3             11
1983......    |             1           1           2           3              7
1984......    |             3           7          10          12             32
1985......    |            12          21          17          18             68
1986......    |            14          14          21          16             65
1987......    |            22          19          12          16             69
1988......    |            11           6          12           7             36
1989......    |             5           7           5           5             22
1990......    |             3           5           6           3             17
1991......    |             2           2           3           1              8
1992......    |             1           1           1           4              7
1993......    |             1           2           2           0              5
1994......    |             0           0           0           0              0
1995......    |             0           0           0           0              0
1996......    |             0           2           0           0              2
1997......    |             0           0           0           1              1
1998......    |             0           0           1           0              1
1999......    |             0           1           0           0              1
2000......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2001......    |             0           0           0           0              0
2002......    |             1           0           0           1              2
________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29