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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6592

CARNELL HUNNICUTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Intervenor/Plaintiff,

versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; R. A.

YOUNG; S. K. YOUNG; A. P. HARVEY; T. YATES; R.

B. PHILLIPS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CHAPLAIN MITCHELL,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-379-7)

Submitted: June 23, 2004 Decided: December 16, 2004
- 2 -

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carnell Hunnicutt, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent,

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Foster Barr, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Carnell Hunnicutt appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Hunnicutt v. Virginia Dep’t of Corr., CA-01-379-7 (W.D.

Va. Mar. 19, 2004; Apr. 17, 2003). 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
**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

|   | (1)    | The                Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31,                2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the                date                hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section                13(a)                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | (2)    | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of                the                dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.                                                                                                                      |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |

| /s/                  John Works |
|---------------------------------|

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Esther CASSIDY, John Schuchardt, Appellants.

No. 78-5151.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 5, 1979.

Decided Nov. 1, 1979.

Sebastian K. D. Graber, Alexandria, Va. (Graber, Stetler & Townsend, Alexandria, Va., David McC. Estabrook, Gattsek, Tavenner, Rosenfeld & McConnell, Ltd., Baileys Crossroads, Va., on brief), for appellants.

Daniel Cisin, Third Year Law Student (William B. Cummings, U. S. Atty., Robert F. McDermott, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., J. Mark Manner and John F. Greaney, Sp. Asst. U. S. Attys., Alexandria, Va., on brief), for appellee.

Before WINTER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and THOMSEN,* Senior District Judge.

*

 Senior United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Defendants were convicted of depredation of government property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361 when they threw or poured blood and ashes on the walls and ceiling of the Pentagon in the course of a demonstration against the design and possession of nuclear weapons. They appeal, contending *102that the district court erroneously limited their defense and that the district court prejudicially interfered with their trial. We affirm.

Defendants sought to justify the acts for which they were convicted on the ground that they constituted a necessary defense to illegal possession by the United States of nuclear weapons. In order to present this defense, they requested the court to appoint experts to testify concerning the nature of the United States’ nuclear arsenal and policies and the legality of these weapons and policies under international law. The district court denied this request and subsequently refused to admit evidence on these points. We find no error in these rulings because, even if possession of nuclear weapons is illegal as defendants contend — an issue that we do not address— the necessity defense is inapplicable. As sought to be applied here, essential elements of the defense are that defendants must have reasonably believed that their action was necessary to avoid an imminent threatened harm, that there are no other adequate means except those which were employed to avoid the threatened harm, and that a direct causal relationship may be reasonably anticipated between the action taken and the avoidance of the harm. Even if we accept defendants’ reasonable belief, we do not think that the elements of lack of other adequate means or direct causal relationship could be satisfied. *See United States v. Simpson,*460 F.2d 515 (9 Cir. 1972); *United States v. Kroncke,*459 F.2d 697 (8 Cir. 1972); *United States v. Moylan,*417 F.2d 1002 (4 Cir. 1969). Thus, the district court did not commit error in limiting the proof.

From our study of the transcript, we conclude that the district judge did not interject himself impermissibly or prejudicially in the conduct of the trial.

*AFFIRMED.*
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1344

SYNTHON IP, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PFIZER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Nichole W. Stafford , Wilson Sonsini, Goodrich & Ro sati, PC, of Austin, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellant. On the brief were Jonathan G. Graves and John P. Moy

, Cooley Godward Kronish LL P, of Reston, Virginia; Michael A. Ladra and Terry Kearney

, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, of Palo Alto, California; Of counsel was Nathan K. Cummings , Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, of Reston, Virginia.

Jack B. Blumenfield , Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunn ell, LLP, of Wilmington, Delaware, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Maryellen

Noreika , and James W. Parrett, Jr . Of counsel was John F. Anderson , Troutman Sanders LLP, of McL ean, Virginia; and Derek J. Fahnestock , Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP, of Wilmigton.

Appealed from: United States District Cour t for the Eastern District of Virginia

Judge Thomas Selby Ellis, IIINOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1344

SYNTHON IP, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PFIZER, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis trict of Virginia in case

no. 1:05-CV-1267, Judge Thom as Selby Ellis, III.

__________________________

DECIDED: June 17, 2008

__________________________

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge , PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge and DYK, Circuit Judge

.

PER CURIAM.

The court, having considered the submission s and oral arguments of the parties,

and having considered the record before and judgment of the Unit ed States District

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, holds that the findings of inequitable conduct

and exceptional case, and the aw ard of attorney fees are affirmed . Under these

circumstances, we need not reach the issues of infringement and validity.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jennifer M. Dooren","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jdooren\/","title":"Splashdown! NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-7 Finishes Mission, Returns to Earth","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sujqyMaBhg\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/splashdown-nasas-spacex-crew-7-finishes-mission-returns-to-earth\/\">Splashdown! NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-7 Finishes Mission, Returns to Earth<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/splashdown-nasas-spacex-crew-7-finishes-mission-returns-to-earth\/embed\/#?secret=sujqyMaBhg\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Splashdown! NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-7 Finishes Mission, Returns to Earth” — NASA\" data-secret=\"sujqyMaBhg\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/crew7return-85cb3e.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":367}
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2004-24, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2004-24 (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2004.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 30, 2005











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2004.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/04 through 12/31/04 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2004, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4829 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4829

 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer administrative 
jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the Home of Franklin D. 
Roosevelt National Historic Site to the Archivist of the United States 
   for the construction of a visitor center, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 14, 1998

 Mr. Solomon introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer administrative 
jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the Home of Franklin D. 
Roosevelt National Historic Site to the Archivist of the United States 
   for the construction of a visitor center, 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. VISITOR CENTER FOR HOME OF FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT NATIONAL 
              HISTORIC SITE.

    (a) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction.--The Secretary of the 
Interior may transfer to the Archivist of the United States 
administrative jurisdiction over land located in the Home of Franklin 
D. Roosevelt National Historic Site, for use by the Archivist for the 
construction of a visitor center facility to jointly serve the Home of 
Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site and the Franklin D. 
Roosevelt Presidential Library, located in Hyde Park, New York.
    (b) Conditions of Transfer.--
            (1) Protection of the site.--The transfer authorized in 
        subsection (a) shall be subject to an agreement between the 
        Secretary and the Archivist that shall include such provisions 
        for the protection of the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt 
        National Historic Site and the joint use of the facility to be 
        constructed as the Secretary and the Archivist may consider 
        necessary.
            (2) Consideration.--A transfer made pursuant to subsection 
        (a) shall be made without consideration or reimbursement.
            (3) Termination.--If use by the Archivist of the land 
        referred to in subsection (a) is terminated by the Archivist at 
        any time, administrative jurisdiction over the land shall 
        automatically revert to the Department of the Interior.
    (c) Description of Land.--The land referred to in subsection (a) 
shall consist of not more than 1 acre of land as may be mutually agreed 
to by the Secretary and the Archivist and more particularly described 
in the agreement required under subsection (b)(1).
                                 <all>
```
8946.

#### Hagedorn *v.*Powers & Baird.

Decided April 11, 1918.

Action upon bond; from Troup superior court—Judge Terrell. May 17, 1917.

*E. T. Moon,*for plaintiff in error. *M. U. Mooty,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. A plaintiff in execution may bring suit in his own name on a forthcoming bond payable to the levying officer, given by a claimant, and, on proof of a breach of the bond, ..may recover the value of the property delivered under the bond, if the value does not exceed the amount of his judgment. Civil Code, § 13. See also *Hart*v. *Thomas,*75 *Ga.*529; *Bowman*v. *Kidd,*13 *Ga. App.*351 (79 S. E. 167).

2. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition, or in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30852

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SHAWNA TICKLES, also known as Shawna Tickless,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Louisiana

No. 10-31085

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

JABAR GIBSON,

Defendant - Appellant

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 14, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 10-31085 Document: 00511956439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2012
Nos. 10-30852

 10-31085

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Eastern District of Louisiana

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After our opinion was issued in these consolidated cases, the Supreme

Court decided Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012). Dorsey held,

contrary to our opinion, that the more lenient penalties of the Fair Sentencing

Act (“Act”) apply to offenders who committed an offense before the Act was

passed, but were sentenced after the Act was enacted. We therefore VACATE

and REMAND these cases for resentencing consistent with the Court’s holding

in Dorsey. 

2

Case: 10-31085 Document: 00511956439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2012
**Exhibit 23.1** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm** **Board of Directors****PeopleSupport, Inc.****Los Angeles, California**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the    Registration Statement on    Form S-8(No. 333-    139404,    333-120150    and    333-115328)    of PeopleSupport, Inc. and the Registration Statement on    Form S-3(No. 333-135560)    of PeopleSupport, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2007,    relating to the consolidated financial statements and the    effectiveness of PeopleSupport Inc.’s internal controls    over financial reporting which appears in this Annual Report on    Form 10-K.    We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report    dated March 15, 2007 relating to the financial statement    schedule which appears in this annual report on    Form 10-K. /s/  BDO    Seidman, LLP    BDO Seidman, LLP     Los Angeles, California    March 16, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                            11,187  
<SECURITIES>                                     122,342  
<RECEIVABLES>                                    798,309   
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (1,532)   
<INVENTORY>                                            0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   6,379   
<PP&E>                                                 0   
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   937,210   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,026   
<BONDS>                                                0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             40,000   
<PREFERRED>                                        1,000   
<COMMON>                                               1   
<OTHER-SE>                                       895,183   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     937,210   
<SALES>                                           46,608   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  46,608   
<CGS>                                                  0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   2,805   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     150   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   43,653   
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0   
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0   
<CHANGES>                                              0   
<NET-INCOME>                                      43,653   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    430,060   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    430,060   
        


</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Lemus Harry Doka,

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01408-PHX-GMS

DETENTION ORDER

On June 24, 2020, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for revocation 

of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court 

considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be released on 

conditions set by the Court.

The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. §

3143.

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

Dated this 24th day of June, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:15-cr-01408-GMS Document 53 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 1