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

No. 22

- 7043

STEPHEN NIVENS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; DAYENA M. CORCORAN, Commissioner; RUSSELL A. NEVERDON, SR., Director of IGO; RICHARD DOVEY, Warden; BALTIMORE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; DAVID R. BLUMBERG, Parole Commissioner , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:20

- cv - 02660

- TDC )

Submitted : May 22, 2023 Decided: June 6, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Stephen Nivens, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7043 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Stephen Nivens appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on Nivens’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Nivens v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs. , No. 8:20

- cv - 02660

- TDC (D. Md. filed Aug. 19, 2022 & entered Aug. 22, 2022). 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7043 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/06/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Burden, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Zweibel, J.), rendered June 24, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court erred in accepting his plea of guilty because his plea allocution was inadequate is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Shukar,*135 AD2d 671). In any event the record reveals that the plea allocution was adequate.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 00-30137

Summary Calendar

_____________________

FREDDIE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEWAYNE CROWELL; MAXIE, Sergeant;

VIVIAN, Sergeant; PERKINS, Sergeant;

G. HILLMAN, Assistant Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-1751

_________________________________________________________________

August 17, 2000

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Freddie Taylor, Louisiana state prisoner # 100971, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as

frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). A dismissal of a complaint as

frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) is reviewed for an abuse of

discretion. See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir.

1998). A dismissal for failure to state a claim under
 

1Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981), overruled in

part not relevant here, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986);

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984).

2

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed under the same de novo standard as

is employed in reviewing dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998).

The district court reasoned that Taylor’s due process claims

were barred under the Parratt/Hudson1 doctrine. Because Taylor

does not argue his due process claims on appeal and does not

address the dismissal of the claims as barred by Parratt/Hudson, he

has abandoned his due process claims for purposes of this appeal.

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). He

also has abandoned any claim of the denial of his right to freedom

of speech by failing to raise the claim on appeal.

Taylor argues that the defendants’ interference with his legal

mail denied him access to the courts. He contends that the

defendants hindered his ability to litigate his claim of cruel and

unusual punishment in Cause No. 99-1639, which is currently pending

in the Western District of Louisiana. Taylor does not suggest that

his position as a litigant actually was prejudiced by the purported

interference with his legal mail. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.

343, 350-51 (1996). Taylor has not demonstrated error in the

district court’s dismissal of his claim of denial of access to the

courts. 
3

For the first time on appeal, Taylor argues that the

defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by interfering with his

legal mail, that in an effort to hinder his ability to litigate a

claim of cruel and unusual punishment. Taylor has not demonstrated

plain error. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 22

(5th Cir. 1995).

A F F I R M E D.
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER

RYAN O’NEILL;

JOAQUIN MARTINEZ;

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON; and

WILLIAM LEGER, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

ORDER FOR REMAND

Pursuant to this Court’s order dated December 13, 2013 and the judgment entered on that

date, the administrative decision denying Plaintiff Ryan O’Neill’s application for benefits under

the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection Program (“TSGLI”) was

vacated and the matter of Plaintiff O’Neill’s application was remanded to the United States

Army for further consideration, with the requirement that the Army to provide “an opportunity

for the claimant to respond to any asserted deficiencies in the documentation previously

provided by submitting any additional relevant materials.” (#88). 

In light of that ruling, the Defendant proposes a voluntary remand of the claims of all

other plaintiffs in this action and the coordinated civil actions, so it can reconsider those

decisions in light of this Court’s guidance. Plaintiff Kevin Stringer and Plaintiff Raul GarciaCase 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 94 Filed 01/22/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

Perez (a plaintiff in Civil Action No. 12-cv-00876-RPM) do not oppose remand and preserve

their right to assert claims for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Plaintiffs

Joaquin Martinez, Christopher Anderson, William Leger III, and those plaintiffs in the

coordinated actions who are represented by attorney William Muhr oppose the Defendant’s

proposal and suggest that this Court should proceed to conduct judicial review of their claims

without further submissions from them. That proposal is rejected. 

Upon consideration of the Defendant’s proposal for remand and the Plaintiffs’ responses,

it is 

ORDERED that the administrative decisions denying TSGLI benefits for Plaintiffs Kevin

Stringer, Joaquin Martinez, Christopher Anderson, and William Leger III are vacated and these

matters are remanded to the United States Army for further consideration, in light of the

guidance provided by this Court’s order dated December 13, 2013. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that this order for remand does not affect the motion for

attorney’s fees filed by Plaintiff Ryan O’Neill on January 13, 2014 (#92). The Defendant shall

respond to Plaintiff Ryan O’Neill’s motion for attorney’s fees on or before March 7, 2014. 

Date: January 22, 2014

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

 

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 94 Filed 01/22/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

WENDY CABRERA,

Intervenor Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 25, 2012.

Defendant’s Motion to File Surreply [filed May 25, 2012; docket #100] is granted. The

Court will consider Defendant’s surreply in consideration of the pending motion to compel [docket

#55].

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 103 Filed 05/25/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Raymond MOTES and Donald Martin v. STATE.

8 Div. 140.

Court of Appeals, of Alabama.

June 4, 1935.

.BICE, Judge.

Affirmed.
#  

**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued ourreports dated June 12, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial state­mentsof Arctic Cat Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-Kand Management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting for the year ended March 31, 2006. We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of Arctic Cat Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-37065,effective October 1, 1990, File No. 33-69916, effective October 4,1993, File No. 33-97244, effective September 22, 1995 and File No. 333-99253,effective September 6, 2002).

/s/GRANT THORNTONLLP

Minneapolis,MinnesotaJune 12, 2006

----
** **

**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc. (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

ThisCertification shall not be deemed part of the report or “filed” for any purposewhatsoever, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any filingunder the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| Date: November 14, 2006 |                                             |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                    | /s/ Dennis R. Jolicoeur                          |   |
|                    | Dennis R. Jolicoeur                              |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Executive |
|                    | Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)     |

 

26

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1334 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1334

    To amend section 2306 of title 38, United States Code, to make 
 permanent authority to furnish government headstones and markers for 
   graves of veterans at private cemeteries, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2007

Mr. Dodd (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Byrd, 
and Mr. Brown) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend section 2306 of title 38, United States Code, to make 
 permanent authority to furnish government headstones and markers for 
   graves of veterans at private cemeteries, 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. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON PROVISION OF GOVERNMENT 
              HEADSTONES AND MARKERS FOR BURIALS OF VETERANS AT PRIVATE 
              CEMETERIES.

    (a) Repeal of Expiration of Authority.--Subsection (d) of section 
2306 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (3); and
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3).
    (b) Retroactive Effective Date.--Notwithstanding subsection (d) of 
section 502 of the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 
2001 (Public Law 107-103; 115 Stat. 995; 38 U.S.C. 2306 note), the 
amendments made to section 2306(d) of title 38, United States Code, by 
such section 502 and the amendments made by section 402 of the Veterans 
Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 (Public 
Law 109-461), other than the amendment made by subsection (e) of such 
section 402, shall take effect as of November 1, 1990, and shall apply 
with respect to the graves of individuals dying on or after that date.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>                   
                           This schedule contains summary financial  information
                           extracted from the financial statements of Obie Media
                           Corporation  which  are  included  in  its  quarterly
                           report Form 10-QSB,  for the quarter  ended  February
                           28,  1999  and  is   qualified  in  its  entirety  by
                           reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                  11,180
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                        5,633,704
<ALLOWANCES>                           353,298
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     7,244,942
<PP&E>                              15,102,021
<DEPRECIATION>                       4,444,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      25,937,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                6,757,098
<BONDS>                             14,573,102
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                             6,941,599
<OTHER-SE>                            (868,158)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        25,937,145
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     6,760,228
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        5,020,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       355,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     277,473
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        726,463
<INCOME-TAX>                           290,583
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    435,880
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           435,880
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.10
        

</TABLE>
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 2, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

ANNABEL DOBBS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 08-6018

WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

AND MANUFACTURERS OF

AMERICA; PRODUCT LIABILITY

ADVISORY COUNCIL, INC.;

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF

THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA,

 Amici Curiae.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

(NO. 5:04-CV-01762-D)

David Charles Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel,

P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C. (Arnold Anderson Vickery, Vickery, Waldner &

Mallia, L.L.P., Houston, TX and Earl Landers Vickery, Austin, TX, with him on

the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Malcolm Edward Wheeler, Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, L.L.P., Denver, CO (Mark

Herrmann, Jones Day, Chicago, IL; Thomas G. Wolfe and Douglas M. Todd,
- 2 -

Phillips, McFall, McCaffrey, McVay & Murrah, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK; and

David Booth Alden, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, with him on the brief), for

Defendant-Appellee. 

Robert A. Long, Jr., Michael X. Imbroscio, Paul W. Schmidt, and Erika F.

Lietzan, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., filed an amicus curiae

brief for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in support of

Defendant-Appellee.

Hugh F. Young, Jr., Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., Reston VA;

Kenneth S. Geller and David M. Gossett, Mayer Brown, L.L.P., Washington,

D.C.; and Robin S. Conrad and Amar D. Sarwal, National Chamber Litigation

Center, Inc., Washington D.C., filed an amicus curiae brief for the Product

Liability Advisory Council, Inc. and Chamber of Commerce of the United States

of America in support of Defendant-Appellee.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, and HENRY and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

HENRY, Circuit Judge.

Annabel Dobbs has alleged that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals failed to

adequately label its antidepressant Effexor to warn of suicide risk, and that this

failure to warn caused her husband’s 2002 suicide while he was taking Effexor. 

The district court granted partial summary judgment to Wyeth, holding that Ms.

Dobbs’s failure to warn claim against Wyeth was preempted by federal law. 

After the district court’s decision, the Supreme Court established a new standard

for a federal preemption defense against a failure to warn claim, holding that the

pharmaceutical company must demonstrate “clear evidence” that the Food and

Drug Administration would have rejected a label change had the pharmaceutical
- 3 -

company unilaterally strengthened its drug’s warning label. See Wyeth v. Levine,

129 S. Ct. 1187, 1198 (2009). Accordingly, we must VACATE the district

court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Wyeth and REMAND the case to the

district court. On remand, the district court should first afford the parties the

opportunity to submit additional evidence. Then, the district court should

reconsider the preemption issue in light of Levine’s new “clear evidence”

standard.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1480 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the payment of 

a monthly stipend to the surviving parents (known as ‘‘Gold Star parents’’) of members of the Armed Forces who die during a period of 

war. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mrs. CLINTON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

payment of a monthly stipend to the surviving parents 

(known as ‘‘Gold Star parents’’) of members of the 

Armed Forces who die during a period of war. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gold Star Parents An5 nuity Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SPECIAL PENSION FOR GOLD STAR PARENTS. 

7 (a) SPECIAL PENSION.— 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 1480 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 15 of title 38, 

2 United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

3 end the following new subchapter: 

4 ‘‘SUBCHAPTER V—SPECIAL PENSION FOR GOLD 

5 STAR PARENTS 

6 ‘‘§ 1571. Gold Star parents 

7 ‘‘(a) The Secretary shall pay monthly to each person 

8 who has received a gold star lapel button under section 

9 1126 of title 10 as a parent of a person who died in a 

10 manner described in subsection (a) of that section a spe11 cial pension in an amount determined under subsection 

12 (b). 

13 ‘‘(b) The amount of special pension payable under 

14 this section with respect to the death of any person shall 

15 be $125 per month. In any case in which there is more 

16 than one parent eligible for special pension under this sec17 tion with respect to the death of a person, the Secretary 

18 shall divide the payment equally among those eligible par19 ents. 

20 ‘‘(c) The receipt of special pension under this section 

21 shall not deprive any person of any other pension or other 

22 benefit, right, or privilege to which such person is or may 

23 hereafter be entitled under any existing or subsequent law. 

24 Special pension under this section shall be paid in addition 

25 to all other payments under laws of the United States. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•S 1480 IS

1 ‘‘(d) Special pension under this section shall not be 

2 subject to any attachment, execution, levy, tax lien, or de3 tention under any process whatsoever. 

4 ‘‘(e) For purposes of this section, the term ‘parent’ 

5 has the meaning provided in section 1126(d)(2) of title 

6 10.’’. 

7 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec8 tions at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is 

9 amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SUBCHAPTER V—SPECIAL PENSION FOR GOLD STAR PARENTS

‘‘1571. Gold Star parents.’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Section 1571 of title 38, 

11 United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take 

12 effect on October 1, 2007. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
EXHIBIT (21)--SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
--------------------------------------------

                                                             State of
                  Name                                       Incorporation
                  ----                                       -------------

         MainSource Bank                                      Indiana

         Regional Bank                                        Indiana

         Kentucky United Bancorp, Inc.                        Kentucky

         IUB Capital Trust                                    Delaware

         IUB Illinois Holdings, Inc.                          Indiana

         Capstone Bank, N.A.                                  Illinois

         IUB Reinsurance Company, Ltd.                        Turks and Caicos

         MainSource Insurance, Inc.                           Indiana

         People's Investment Company, Ltd.                    Bermuda

         Union Investment Company, Ltd.                       Bermuda

         PTC Investments, Inc.                                Nevada

         RB Investments, Inc.                                 Nevada

         MainSource Statutory Trust I                         Indiana