alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Lee MALENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Al RICHARD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-10663.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Dec. 10, 2004.

James Lee Malena, # 267290, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, Huntsville, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael Forest Nelson, Burt Barr & Associates, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Lee Malena (Malena), Texas prisoner #267290, seeks leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*(IFP) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. In his complaint, Malena asserted that A1 Richard (Richard) violated his due process rights by not providing him with a disciplinary hearing before violations, occurring at a halfway house, were reported to parole authorities.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Malena is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(5). However, Malena has not demonstrated any nonfrivolous ground for appeal.

In *Morrissey v. Brewer,*408 U.S. 471, 485-89, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) the Supreme Court established that in order to comply with due process, a *356parolee must be afforded a preliminary probable cause hearing when he is arrested for a parole violation and a more through revocation hearing within a reasonable time after he is taken into custody. Malena does not contend that he was denied due process in the form of a preliminary hearing post-arrest for violating a condition of his parole. He cites no authority in support of his contention that he was entitled to a hearing prior to being arrested for the parole violation. Because the loss of liberty as a parole violator does not occur until the parolee is placed under arrest, Malena has failed to state a due process violation against Richard. *See Cook v. United States Att’y Gen.,*488 F.2d 667, 669-71 (5th Cir.1974); *Deveny v. United States Bd. of Parole,*565 F.2d 875, 878 (5th Cir.1978).

Accordingly, Malena’s IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Both the district court’s dismissal and this court’s dismissal of the instant appeal count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Malena is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT
 
 I, Chien
Chih Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Rotoblock Corporation, hereby certify
that:
 
 (1)  I have
reviewed this annual report of Rotoblock 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 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 Rotoblock Corporation as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;
 
 (4)  Rotoblock
Corporation'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)):
 
 (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 Rotoblock Corporation, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, 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 Rotoblock Corporation'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 Rotoblock Corporation's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during Rotoblock Corporation's most recent
fiscal quarter (Rotoblock Corporation's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, Rotoblock Corporation's internal control over financial
reporting; and
 
 (5)  Rotoblock
Corporation's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
Rotoblock Corporation's auditors and the audit committee of Rotoblock
Corporation'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 Rotoblock Corporation'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 Rotoblock Corporation's internal control over
financial reporting.
  
 Dated:
August 1,
2008 ROTOBLOCK
CORPORATION
 
 /s/ Chien
Chih Liu
 By: Chien
Chih Liu, Chief
Executive Officer
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 101 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                  House Calendar No. 12
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 101

                          [Report No. 105-33]

 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 91) providing 
    amounts for the expenses of certain committees of the House of 
           Representatives in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 1997

    Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 91) providing 
    amounts for the expenses of certain committees of the House of 
           Representatives in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the resolution (H. Res. 91) providing amounts for the expenses of 
certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred 
Fifth Congress. The resolution shall be considered as read for 
amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on House Oversight now printed in the resolution shall be 
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the resolution, as amended, to final adoption without 
intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) 1 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on House Oversight; (2) the 
further amendment specified in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution, if offered by a Member designated in the 
report, which shall be considered as read, shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order, and shall be separately debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit.
                                     





                                                  House Calendar No. 12

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 101

                          [Report No. 105-33]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 91) providing 
    amounts for the expenses of certain committees of the House of 
           Representatives in the One Hundred Fifth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 19, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
20cr254

FILED 6/1/2020

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
20-mj-344 BRT

Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
20-mj-344 BRT

Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
20-mj-344 BRT

Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
Case: 1:20-cr-00254 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/01/20 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 337 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 27, 1998.
    Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, before Monday, May 18, 1998, the 
hour of daily meeting of the House shall be 2:00 p.m. on Mondays; 11:00 a.m. on 
Tuesdays; and 10:00 a.m. on all other days of the week; and from Monday, May 18, 
1998, until the end of the second session, the hour of daily meeting of the 
House shall be noon on Mondays; 10:00 a.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and 
Thursdays; and 9:00 a.m. on all other days of the week.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### John W. Small, etc. *v.*C. F. Bryland, etc.

Appeals and Errors — Reversal—Amended Answer Not Sufficient to Review Decision — Relitigation.

An amended answer after the return of a ease from the Court of Appeals cannot he regarded as an original pleading or an appropriate petition for reviewing or relitigating the questions involved by the decision of the Court of Appeals, and which by the mandate the Circuit Court was required to carry into effect.

APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

December 12, 1870.

*432
      *Hallwin, Stevenson, for appellants.*

*Myers, Webster, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The amended answer offered and rejected after the return of the cause from this court cannot, we think, be properly regarded as an original pleading or an appropriate and sufficient petition for reviewing or relitigating the questions involved by the decision of this court, and which by the mandate of this court, the circuit court was required to carry into effect.

The withdrawal by the appellee of the notes on Ogden under the order of the court, and which he might have been, but was not required by rule, to return or account for, would not alone have constituted a ground for enjoining or modifying the decision of the court, 'to be made in conformity to the opinion of this court, if appropriately set up for that purpose.

But whatever might be the right and remedy of the appellants in the event of the collection, or appropriation of those notes by the appellee, we are satisfied the amendment tendered was rightly rejected.

Therefore the judgment is affirmed.
#### Frank A. MCDONALD, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7055.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Oct. 25, 2004.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s letter dated September 27, 2004,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This appeal is dismissed.
#### STATE v. JAMES

No. 258P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 227

Notice of appeal by defendant pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question) dismissed 23 July 1997. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 02-60711 

_____________________

NATHANIEL HENLEY; EMMA MOORE; FRANKIE MOORE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

PIONEER CREDIT COMPANY; ET AL,

 Defendants,

PIONEER CREDIT COMPANY; ROBIN L. PENNINGTON, in her

individual capacity; FREDA WEEKS, in her individual

capacity; AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY; VOYAGER

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees

_____________________

No. 02-60809 

_____________________

NATHANIEL HENLEY; EMMA MOORE; FRANKIE MOORE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

PIONEER CREDIT COMPANY; ET AL,

 Defendants

AMERICAN RELIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY;

VOYAGER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

 Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

USDC Nos. 1:01-CV-349-DD and 1:01-CV-453-DD

_________________________________________________________________

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
* 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.

PER CURIAM:*

Nathaniel Henley, Emma Moore, and Frankie Lee Moore appeal

the district court’s order compelling arbitration of their claims

against Pioneer Credit Company and the district court’s grant of

summary judgment on the merits in favor of American Reliable Life

Insurance Company and Voyager Life Insurance Company. For the

essentially the reasons given by the district court, the judgment

of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal Accounting
Officer of AUX (USA) Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge on the date of this certification:

            1.    The annual report of the Company for the period ended December
                  31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
                  on this date (the "Report") fully complies with the
                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934; and

            2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: March 30, 2005
                         By: /s/ Jian Jiang Zheng
                             ----------------------------------------
                         Name:  Jian Jiang Zheng
                         Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
                                Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26806]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


National Science Board

    The National Science Board's ad hoc Committee on Honorary Awards, 
pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science 
Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in 
the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the 
scheduling of a meeting for the transaction of National Science Board 
business, as follows:
    Date and Time: Monday, November 17, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. EST.
    Subject Matter: Consideration of nominations for honorary awards.
    Status: Closed.
    This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the 
National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Please refer to the National Science Board Web site (www.nsf.gov/nsb) for information or schedule updates, or contact: Nadine Lymn, 
National Science Foundation, 4201Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 292-7000.

Ann Bushmiller,
NSB Senior Legal Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014-26806 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Alesyn Lowry","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BpG7PqhVSX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/alesyn-lowry-acting-director-for-strategic-planning-and-integration\/\">Alesyn Lowry<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/alesyn-lowry-acting-director-for-strategic-planning-and-integration\/embed\/#?secret=BpG7PqhVSX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Alesyn Lowry” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BpG7PqhVSX\" 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\/2023\/04\/alesyn-lowry.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
#### Clark *vs.*Clark.

1, The mere fact that the referee, in an action for a divorce on the ground of adultery, was referee in a prior action between the same parties, and decided in favor of the defendant, is not of itself sufficient cause for changing the referee, on the application of the plaintiff.

2. It must appear, from the testimony taken and proceedings had in the former case, either that the referee had a bias in favor of, or prejudice against, one of the parties, or that his decision in that case will be apt to influence his mind in determining the subsequent one.

(Before Jones, J. at special term,

February —, 1868.)

Motion to change the referee in this case.

Jones, J.

A motion is made, on behalf of the plaintiff to procure a change of the referee heretofore appointed by the court herein. The action was brought to procure a divorce on the ground of adultery. The change is asked for on the ground that the present referee was referee in a prior action between the same parties, and decided in favor of the defendant. This of itself is not sufficient to call for granting the present motion. It must appear from the testimony taken and proceedings had in the former case, either that the referee had a bias in favor of,4 or prejudice against one of the parties, or that his decision in that cáse will be apt to influence his mind in determining the subsequent one.

. For the purpose of establishing one or the other, or *63both of their propositions, the record in the prior case, consisting of the pleadings, order of reference, testimony taken before the referee, and his report were submitted to me. I have examined this evidence, and I think the decision of the referee was clearly correct; no bias can therefore be inferred from the fact of his decision being in favor of the defendant. Nor do I see how the decision in that case can influence his mind in this. • It is true he will hold that if the evidence in this case is precisely similar to that in the other, except as to time, place and party, it is not sufficient to support the plaintiff’s case. This, however, every other referee would in my judgment be bound to do,

If the object of this motion is to obtain a referee who, upon such testimony, would report in favor of the plaintiff^ it should not be granted.

It is true the defendant was shown to be guilty of great improprieties by the .evidence of the alleged *partioeps oriminis;*but that party distinctly and positively denies any criminal intercourse. It is also true that his testimony is subject to great criticism. But if he is to be wholly disbelieved, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff’s case. I see no reason for crediting him as to every thing else, but disbelieving him when he swears there was no criminal intercourse.

The application must be”denied,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3

Eastern Division

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03758

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, August 24, 2022:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: The Court enters the

following briefing schedule as to the Motion for Entry of Supplemental Relief Against

Defendants Donelson, Long Leaf Trading, and Ruth [111]: Responses are due by

9/23/2022; Reply is due by 10/7/2022. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 114 Filed: 08/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2847