alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 2065

WESLEY LEON BETHEA ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.
DETECTIVE DAVID CHAD ELLIS; DETECTIVE JASON CORPREW; OFFICER JESSE EMORY; SERGEANT REGINALD BRANCH; OFFICER NORMA RUIZ; DETECTIVE DAVID STANCIL; OFFICER DAVID SEAGROVES; OFFICER RUSSELL WINSTEAD; SERGEANT STEVE STROUD; WILSON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF WILSON; C. BRUCE ROSE, Mayor of the City of Wilson; THOMAS P. HOPKINS, Police Chief, City of Wilson
,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:16

- cv

- 00178

- D )

Submitted : February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Wesley Leon Bethea , Appellant Pro Se. James P. Cauley III
, Gabriel Du Sablon
, CAULEY PRIDGEN, PA , Wilson, North Carolina, for Appellees

.

Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Wesley Leon Bethea appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment
in favor of Defendants on his claim for malicious prosecution . On appeal, we confine our

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Bethea ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,
namely that the false statements at issue were not material to the determination of
probable cause, Bethea h as forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams

v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with
oral argume nt because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
News United States Air Force
 Air Force Marathon prices to increase June 17Published June 6, 2019
                        
                        By Stacey Geiger
                        
                        
                        88th Air Base Wing Public Affairs
                **WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) --**
                Runners who plan on participating in the Air Force Marathon this September have their last chance to save money on registration if they register before prices increase June 17.

Prices for the full, half and 10K marathons are currently $100, $90 and $45 respectively. All three races will increase by $10 on June 17 while the 5K and Tailwind Trot 1K Kids’ Run, hosted by Wright State University, will increase by $5 and $3 respectively. The Fly! Fight! Win! Challenge will increase to $190.

All registered runners receive a technical shirt and goodie bag. Everyone who finishes a race also gets a medal celebrating this year’s featured aircraft, the KC-46 Pegasus. Medals are presented at the finish line by Air Force senior leaders. All races begin and end at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, except the 5K, which takes place on the campus of Wright State University.

The Air Force Marathon is a Boston Marathon qualifying event and the course goes past a number of historic landmarks including Huffman Prairie, where the Wright Brothers developed the world’s first practical airplane.



**DISTANCE**
   APR 8 – JUN 16
   JUN 17 – SEP 18**MARATHON**
   $100
   $110**HALF**
   $90
   $100**10K**
   $45
   $55**5K**
   $35
   $40**Tailwind Trot 1K Kids Run**
   $17
   $20**FLY! FIGHT! WIN! CHALLENGE!**
   $170
   $190

The 2019 Air Force Marathon, presented by Northrop Grumman, USAA and Boeing, is scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 21. The Sports & Fitness expo is scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 19 and Friday, Sept. 20. The Breakfast of Champions is scheduled for Friday, Sept. 20, from 8 to 10 a.m. and the gourmet pasta dinner is scheduled for Friday evening, starting at 5:30 p.m. For more information about the Air Force Marathon go to **www.usafmarathon.com.**Wright-Patterson AFB 



Air Force Base 



Air Force Materiel Command 



AFMC 



Air Force Marathon 



runners 



registration 



Fly! Fight! Win! Challenge 



KC-46 Pegasus 



National Museum of the United States Air Force 



Wright State University
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: VR Demo / 3-D Printed F-22 PartPublished Jan. 24, 2019
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Braden Anderson
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                On this look Around the Air Force, a virtual reality and augmented reality demonstration at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., and an F-22 Raptor gets a 3-D printed part. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Braden Anderson.  </iframe

For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- **Virtual, augmented reality may hold key to future Air Force training**
- **First metallic 3D printed part installed on F-22**
- **US, Philippine AF conduct bilateral air contingency exchange**
 F-22 Philippines 3-D Around the Air Force Featured Videos AF Reports augmented reality AirForce TV SSgt BradenAnderson printed part Bilateral Contingency Exchange ATAF Virtual Reality
EXHIBIT31

** **

**CERTIFICATIONS**

** **

I,Vincent C. Simonelli, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report of Dream Homes & Development Corporation.;

 

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

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

 

4.The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as 4efined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuer and have:

 

(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designedunder our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation offinancial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and

 

(d)Disclosed in this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the issuer’smost recent fiscal quarter (the issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a)All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

(b)Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 66 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

  The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were 
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

           By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Dole, Mr. 
             Daschle, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, Mr. Brown, Mr. Smith, 
             Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
             Ford, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
             Robb, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Abraham, 
             Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
             Campbell, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
             Cohen, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. 
             DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist, Mr. 
             Gorton, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
             Gregg, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Jeffords, Mrs. Kassebaum, 
             Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lugar, Mr. 
             Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
             Packwood, Mr. Pressler, Mr. Roth, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
             Shelby, Mr. Simpson, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
             Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thurmond, and 
             Mr. Warner):
       S. Res. 110. A resolution expressing the sense of the 
     Senate condemning the bombing in Oklahoma City.
     

                          ____________________
```
#### Cook *v.*Albrecht et al.

[No. 18,967.

Filed June 5, 1957.]

*458
      *Johnson & Carroll, Edwin W. Johnson*and *John Carroll,*of Evansville, for appellant.

*Frank M. Fish*and *E. H. Ireland,*of Evansville, for appellees.

Crumpacker, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the Probate Court of Vanderburgh County .setting aside the probate of a purported will of one Anna M. Grossman, deceased, and the judgment of such court holding that Anna M. Grossman, deceased, died intestate.

The appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, or in the alternative, that the judgment be affirmed. The grounds of such motion include a specification that the assignment of errors does not comply with Rule 2-6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, in that, in the title to said assignment of errors neither the appellant or appellees are named as required by such rule. Such rule, *inter alia,*contains the following:

> *459“In the title to the assignment of errors all parties to the judgment seeking relief by the appeal shall be named as appellants, and all parties to the judgment whose interests are adverse to the interests of the appellants shall be named as appellees.”

Such rule also states that “failure properly to name parties will not be treated as jurisdictional.

In the instant case the assignment of errors completely omits the names of any parties, either appellant or appellees, and, contains the designation of the cause as follows: “In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Anna M. Grossman, deceased.”

An examination of the rule in question and the authorities interpreting the rule, both before and after the 1943 amendment of the rules, seems to warrant the conclusion that where the failure to properly name parties will not be treated as jurisdictional under the rule, applies to cases of mispelled names of parties, the naming of an appellee as an appellant, or an appellant as an appellee, or the failure to designate the capacity of a party, or cases involving the omission of the names of some of the parties involved in the appeal who were parties to the record in the court below. Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton, Sections 2402, 2403 and 2404, pages 169-174; *Ind. Dept. of State Rev.*v. *Mertz*(1949) 119 Ind. App. 601, 88 N. E. 2d 917.

However, from the assignment of errors in the instant case it is wholly impossible to determine the names of any of the parties, either appellant or appellees, who were parties to the record in the court below, and indulging the greatest liberality it would be impossible to determine from the assignment of errors who was appealing such cause adverse to any particular party whatsoever. Under such circumstances we are required to hold that the assignment of errors is insufficient. *460Furthermore, following the filing of appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal no request was presented to this court for an amendment of such assignment of errors.

For the reasons given herein this court hereby sustains the appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 143 N. E. 2d 431.
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Aaron D. Peck, certify that: 1.

          I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Monroe Capital Corporation; 2.

          Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 3.

          Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; 4.

          The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a)

          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b)

          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c)

          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5.

          The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)

          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)

          Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 4, 2016 /s/ Aaron D. PeckAaron D. PeckChief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Director(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Monroe Capital Corporation
News United States Air Force
 Air Force officials select three captains for Ph.D. programPublished Sept. 11, 2018
                        
                        By Richard Salomon
                        
                        
                        Air Force’s Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS)  --**
                Air Force officials have selected three primary and three alternate captains for the Chief of Staff of the Air Force Captains Prestigious Ph.D. Program.
The program offers captains the opportunity to earn their doctoral degrees in strategic studies at top universities with the goal of building Air Force and joint leaders who can communicate and exercise critical thinking skills with civilian leadership across enterprises.
The primary selectees are:
- Capt. Alexander Chesney, U.S. Air Forces in Europe
- Capt. Peter Crawford, Air Force Special Operations Command
- Capt. Joshua Shepard, Air Force Space Command
The alternate selectees are Capt. Christine Lacoste, Air Force Materiel Command; Capt. Sergio Lozano, Air Combat Command; and Capt. Ryan Young, USAFE.Degree options include Asia Pacific studies, history, political science, international relations, economics, philosophy, international business relations, international security studies, and political systems and theories.
Complete eligibility and application requirements, including degree and school options, can be found onmyPers. Select “Active Duty Officer” from the dropdown menu and search “Prestigious.”For more information about military developmental education, visithttp://www.afpc.af.mil/Force-Development/Military-Developmental-Education/Air Force 



CSAF 



USAFE 



Air Force Materiel Command 



AFMC 



Air Combat Command 



Air Force Space Command 



AETC 



AF 



AFSOC 



AFSPC 



Air Force Special Operations Command 



ACC 



captain 



chief of staff of the Air Force 



U.S. Air Forces in Europe 



joint base 



eligibility 



Air Force Education and Training Command 



Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. David L. Goldfien 



David L. Goldfien 



Chief of Staff of the Air Force Captains Pretigious Ph.D. Program 



doctoral degrees 



requirments 



JB San Antonio-Randolph
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
        
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                          526,367
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                   123,308
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                693,544
<PP&E>                        7,868,133
<DEPRECIATION>                2,880,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                5,873,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           184,938
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                    1,475,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  5,873,350
<SALES>                         360,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                375,389
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                354,210
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  21,179
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     21,179
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         3.23			
<EPS-DILUTED>                         3.23

        

</TABLE>
No. 12,163.

#### Tracewell, Administrator, *v.*Farnsley.

*Practice.*— Pleading.—Harmless *Error.*— Where it affirmatively appears on the face of the record that the judgment rests on a good paragraph of a pleading, an error in overruling a demurrer to a bad paragraph is harmless.

From the Harrison Circuit Court.

*W. N. Tracewell*and *R. J.*Tracewell, for appellant.

*B. P. Douglass*and. *S. M. Stockslager,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

The appellee filed a petition, consisting of two paragraphs, asking that personal property be set apart to her, as the widow of William H. Farnsley, deceased. In the first paragraph, she claims $500 under the law of Indiana, averring that her husband was a resident of this State at the time of his death, although temporarily absent in Kentucky; in the second, she claimed $700 under the laws of Kentucky where her husband died.

The appellant’s contention is, that the second paragraph is bad because it does not set out the statute of Kentucky.

We do not deem it necessary to decide the question argued, for it affirmatively appears that the appellee was allowed only $500, and that the finding and judgment rest on the' first paragraph of the petition.

It has been again and again decided that where it affirmatively appears on the face of the record that the judgment .rests on a good paragraph of a pleading, an error in overruling a demurrer to a bad paragraph is harmless. This is in harmony with the general rule which prevails almost everywhere, that where it is clear that the error did not prejudice the rights of the appellant, the judgment will not be reversed. *Lancaster*v. *Collins,*115 U. S. 222 ; *Hornbuckle*v. *Stafford,*111 U. S. 389; *Mining Co.*v. *Taylor,*100 U. S. *49837. This general rule has been many times .declared and' enforced in this court.

Filed Jan. 7, 1886.

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.a
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 0F THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Roderick M. Sherwood III

Roderick M. Sherwood IIIAugust 14, 2009
 *
    
    This statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Westwood One, Inc. and will be retained by Westwood One, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.