alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-BNB

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

(DRDC) CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PASTILLETTI (CDOC),

NURSE DOUG OF (DRDC) (CDOC),

(DRDC) WARDEN ZAVISLAN (CDOC),

(DRDC) CAPTAIN REAUX (CDOC),

(DRDC) CAPTAIN ZERBO (CDOC),

(DRDC) LIEUTENANT CARIGAN (CDOC), and

TOM CLEMENTS, Executive Director of D.O.C.,

Defendants.

ORDER TO DISCHARGE SHOW-CAUSE ORDER

Plaintiff, Ronald M. Cox, is a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department

of Corrections at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility in Buena Vista, Colorado. Mr.

Cox claims in this action that his rights under the United States Constitution have been

violated. On March 1, 2012, the court ordered Mr. Cox to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the filing fee payment requirements of

28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Mr. Cox specifically was advised that, in order to show good

cause, he must submit a certified copy of his inmate trust fund account statement for the

period from December 2011 through February 2012 and, if he was required to make a

filing fee payment in any of those months, he also must make the required monthly filing

fee payment(s).

Case 1:11-cv-02554-BNB Document 17 Filed 03/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

On March 9, 2012, Mr. Cox submitted a certified copy of his inmate trust fund

account statement that indicates he has had a negative balance in his inmate trust fund

account for the entire period from September 1, 2011, through March 6, 2012. 

Therefore, the court finds that Mr. Cox has shown good cause for his failure to make

any monthly filing fee payments between December 2011 and February 2012 and the

Order to Show Cause will be discharged. However, even if he is unable to make

monthly filing fee payments in the future, Mr. Cox still must submit a certified copy of his

inmate trust fund account statement each month in order to show cause why he is

unable to make a monthly filing fee payment. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 15) filed in this action

on March 1, 2012, is discharged.

DATED March 13, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02554-BNB Document 17 Filed 03/13/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### NELSON v. MOUHOUTIS.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1537 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1537

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize the transfer of certain funds from the Senate Gift Shop 
        Revolving Fund to the Senate Employee Child Care Center.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFERS FROM SENATE GIFT SHOP REVOLVING FUND.

    Section 2(c) of Public Law 102-392 (2 U.S.C. 121d(c)) is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) The Secretary of the Senate may transfer from the fund to the 
Senate Employee Child Care Center proceeds from the sale of holiday 
ornaments by the Senate Gift Shop for the purpose of funding necessary 
activities and expenses of the Center, including scholarships, 
educational supplies, and equipment.''.

            Passed the Senate May 25, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1537

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To authorize the transfer of certain funds from the Senate Gift Shop 
        Revolving Fund to the Senate Employee Child Care Center.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1255

DOMINIC BIANCHI, an individual and resident of Baltimore County; DAVID 

SNOPE, an individual and resident of Baltimore County; MICAH SCHAEFER, an 

individual and resident of Anne Arundel County; FIELD TRADERS LLC, A 

resident of Anne Arundel County; FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC.; 

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION; CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE 

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

BRIAN E. FROSH, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Maryland; COL. 

WOODROW W. JONES, III, in his official capacity as Secretary of State Police of 

Maryland; R. JAY FISHER, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Baltimore County, 

Maryland; JIM FREDERICKS, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Anne Arundel 

County, Maryland,

 Defendants - Appellees.

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

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-03495-JKB)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 17, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1255 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/17/2021 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, THE DIGUISEPPE LAW FIRM, P.C., Southport, North 

Carolina; Adam Kraut, FIREARMS POLICY COALTION, Sacramento, California; 

David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Tiernan B. Kane, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, 

Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland,

Robert A. Scott, Assistant Attorney General, Ryan R. Dietrich, Assistant Attorney General, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1255 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/17/2021 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In this action, 

Plaintiffs sought to challenge Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act’s ban on assault weapons as 

violative of the Second Amendment. As Plaintiffs concede, however, their argument is 

squarely foreclosed by this court’s decision in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 

2017) (en banc). “As a panel, we are not authorized to reconsider an en banc holding.” 

Joseph v. Angelone, 184 F.3d 320, 325 (4th Cir. 1999). 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1255 Doc: 26 Filed: 09/17/2021 Pg: 3 of 3
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1566 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to improve that Act, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2007 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. CRAIG, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to improve that 

Act, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUDITS AND REPORTS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title I of the Oil Pollution Act 

5 of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 1021. AUDITS AND REPORTS. 

8 ‘‘(a) AUDITS.—Not later than April 30 of the fiscal 

9 year in which this section is enacted, and every 2 years 

10 thereafter, the President shall provide to the Committee 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•S 1566 IS

1 on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 

2 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

3 House of Representatives an audit conducted by the 

4 Comptroller General of the United States that includes a 

5 detailed accounting of all funds from the Fund in excess 

6 of $100,000 that are— 

7 ‘‘(1) disbursed by the National Pollution Funds 

8 Center; and 

9 ‘‘(2) administered and managed by the receiv10 ing agencies, including final payments made through 

11 agencies, contractors, and subcontractors. 

12 ‘‘(b) REPORTS.—Not later than February 28 of the 

13 fiscal year in which this section is enacted, and every Feb14 ruary 28 thereafter, the Secretary, the Secretary of the 

15 Interior, the Secretary of Transportation, the Adminis16 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

17 heads of any other Federal agencies that, during the pre18 ceding fiscal year, received funds from the Fund in excess 

19 of $100,000, shall— 

20 ‘‘(1) provide to the President a report account21 ing for the uses of the funds by the Federal agency, 

22 including a description of ways in which those uses 

23 relate to— 

24 ‘‘(A) oil pollution liability, compensation, 

25 prevention, preparedness, and removal; 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•S 1566 IS

1 ‘‘(B) natural resource damage assessment 

2 and restoration; 

3 ‘‘(C) oil pollution research and develop4 ment; and 

5 ‘‘(D) other oil pollution-related activities; 

6 and 

7 ‘‘(2) make each report available to the public 

8 and other interested parties via the Internet website 

9 of the National Pollution Funds Center. 

10 ‘‘(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

11 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are nec12 essary to carry out this section.’’. 

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec14 tions in section 2 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 

15 U.S.C. prec. 1001) is amended by inserting after the item 

16 relating to section 1020 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 1021. Audits and reports.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
|                                                                       |                | Exhibit 99(a)
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | -------------
|Household Finance Corporation                                          |                |              
|HRSI Funding, Inc. II                                                  |                |              
|Household Private Label Credit Card Master Note Trust I, Series 2001-1
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|Original Class A Principal                                             | 400,000,000.00 |              
|Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                                        | 400,000.00     |              
|Original Class B Principal                                             | 58,275,000.00  |              
|Number of Class B Bonds (000's)                                        | 58,275.00      |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                | 2003 Totals  
|                                                                       |                |              
|CLASS A                                                                |                |              
|Class A Principal Distributions                                        |                | 0.00         
|Class A Interest                                                       |                | 5,549,883.67 
|                                                                       |                |              
|                                                                       |                |              
|CLASS B                                                                |                |              
|Class B Principal Distributions                                        |                | 0.00         
|Class B Interest                                                       |                | 991,208.43
##### 



EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community
Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) that the Annual Report of the Company on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of
such period and results of operations of the Company for such period.

|                     |  |      |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | ---- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 18, 2004 |  | By:  |  | /s/ John R. Schroll                  
|                     |  |      |  |                                      
|                     |  |      |  | John R. Schroll                      
|                     |  |      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  |      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        
|                     |  |      |  |                                      
|Date: March 18, 2004 |  | And: |  | /s/ William C. Kurtz                 
|                     |  |      |  |                                      
|                     |  |      |  | William C. Kurtz                     
|                     |  |      |  | Senior Vice President and Treasurer  
|                     |  |      |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO BALDOVINOS,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

PAUL COPENHAVER,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 15

- 16537

D.C. No. 1: 13

- cv

- 00806

- SKO

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted March 8, 2017 ** *

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER

, and OWENS , Circuit Judges.

Pedro Baldovinos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petit ion de novo, see Tablada v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

** * The panel unanimousl y concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 16537

Thomas , 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Baldovinos c hallenges the finding of the disciplinary hearing officer

(“DHO”) that he committed riot

- like conduct and contends that the disciplinary

proceedings violated his right to due process. T he record reflects that Baldovinos ’s

disciplinary hear ing comported wi th due process and “some evidence” supports the

DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985)

(requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary

decision); Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 563

- 71 (1 974) (setting forth due

process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). We reject Baldovinos ’s

claim that the DHO , a Bureau of Prisons employee

, lacked authority to impose

disciplinary sanctions against him for conduct that occurred at a contra ct facility

.

See 28 C.F.R. § 541.10(a) (2007). Finally, we reject Baldovinos ’s double jeopardy

claim s

. See United States v. Brown , 59 F.3d 102, 104

- 05 (9th Cir. 1995) ( “ the

prohibition against double jeopardy does not bar criminal prosecution for conduct

that has been the subject of prison disciplinary sanctions,” and loss of good

conduct time does not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes).

We decline to consider Baldovinos’s claim, raised for the first time on

appeal, that he is actually innocent of his 2010 criminal convictions in the Western3 15

- 16537

District of Texas. See Taniguchi v. Schultz , 303 F.3d 950, 959 (9th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 24, 2021

NO. 03-19-00436-CR

Joshua Aaron Bishop, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
Exhibit 31.1

                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
              SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael Burke, President and Director of Focus Affiliates, Inc. certify that:

1  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Focus Affiliates,
   Inc.

2  Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue
   statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
   make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
   statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
   this Quarterly Report;

3  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all
   material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
   flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
   Quarterly Report;

4  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
   procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
   Registrant and I have:

a  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
   information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
   subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
   particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report is being
   prepared;

b  evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and
   procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
   Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c  presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the effectiveness
   of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
   Evaluation Date;

5  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's
   auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or
   persons performing the equivalent function);

a  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
   controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
   process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
   Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal
   controls.


Dated : July 9th, 2008            Signature :  /s/ Michael Burke
                                               --------------------------
                                                   Michael Burke
                                                   President and Director

<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1

The following certifications are being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and pursuant to SEC Release
No. 33-8212, 34-47551 are being "furnished" to the SEC rather than "filed" either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and are not to be
incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The
following certifications shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of Section 18
or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Gradco Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:



Dated:
July 11, 2003

| |  | /s/MARTIN E. TASHChairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gradco Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Gradco Systems, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Gradco Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:



Dated:
July 11, 2003

| |  | /s/HARLAND L. MISCHLERExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gradco Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Gradco Systems, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
Case 1:11-cv-02299-LTB Document 5 Filed 11/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1