alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerry Eugene COLEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7387.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 23, 2004.

Jerry Eugene Coleman, Appellant pro se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Eugene Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 15, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on August 20, 2004. Because Coleman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### Petition of WILLIS.

United States District Court, E. D. Virginia, Norfolk Division.

Sept. 28, 1951.

Case submitted by Examiner for Immigration and Naturalization Service.

*338BRYAN, District Judge.,

At the time Emma Willis filed her petition she was under parole for the unexpired portion of a felony sentence from a New York State court, and the sole question is whether a pardon is prerequisite to her naturalization.

Now fifty-three, she has resided in the United States since her lawful entry in 1923, and having married an American citizen prior to 1934, she needs but one year of residence to qualify for naturalization.1 In addition, for the five years preceding her petition she must have been, and she must now be, a person of good moral character.2

Investigation of her conduct for this period has unearthed no misbehavior of any kind. Her sentence, imposed June 18, 1931, was 10 to 20 years on a charge of accessory to robbery. Her parole began in 1938 and ended January 9, 1951. During its continuance she attained and held favorable adjustment. It was- on August 16, 1949 that she presented her application for citizenship.

The Immigration and .Naturalization Service recommends that she be awarded her citizenship, but because she was under parole when she petitioned, as well as during the preceding five years, the Examiner especially directed the attention of the Court to her case.

Strong authority sustains the Service in. its recommendation. The courts have' declared that present good character plus exemplary conduct of the alien for the 5-year period, although all the while under parole, satisfies the statute, absent any -previous offense projecting a doubt into the statutory period upon the applicant’s character.3 I hesitated because I observed that in all of these cases, a pardon had been first obtained by the petitioner. Without a pardon the applicant, if successful, would acquire a citizenship lacking in many of its important properties — those privileges, such as holding public office, voting, and jury service, of which a citizen is commonly stripped by a State upon his conviction of a felony. I questioned the logic of conferring a citizenship so pared.

Upon reflection I have concluded that in the circumstances here, with undoubted proof of her good character, I should not hold -a pardon to be a prerequisite to her admission to citizenship. To do so would impose a condition not expressed or implied in the naturalization acts. It might, too, place naturalization dependent upon State action when it is .exclusively a Federal prerogative. Moreover, this limitation of her civil rights is not incompatible with citizenship; it is found in native citizenship having the imprint of a felony judgment.

Her petition will be granted.

1

. See. 310(a), Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 710(a).

2

. Sec. 307(a), Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.O.A. § 707 (a); Petition of Ludecke, D.C.Mich., 31 F.Supp. 521; In re Bookschnis, D.C.Or., 61 F.Supp. 751; In re Laws, D.C.Cal., 59 F.Supp. 179.

3

. Daddona v. United States, 2 Cir., 170 F.2d 964; Marcantonio v. United States, 4 Cir., 185 F.2d 934; Petition of Sperduti, D.C., 81 F.Supp. 833.
1033174\306901788.v5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Commodity Futures Trading Commission,

Plaintiff,

v.

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., James A. 

Donelson, Timothy M. Evans, Jeremy S. Ruth, 

and Andrew D. Nelson,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20-3758

The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

DEFENDANT JEREMY RUTH’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES

PURSUANT TO FRCP 26(A) (1)

Defendant, Jeremy S. Ruth (“Ruth”), by and through its undersigned counsel, states the 

following as his disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) in the above 

captioned action:

A) The name and, if know, the address and telephone number of each person likely to have 

discoverable information along with the subjects of that information (besides those listed in the 

Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures submitted by other parties) as described Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A), 

unless the use would be solely for impeachment:

a) Anthony Klancic, 802 Aspen Drive, Lombard, IL 60148. (630) 209-5586.

Mr. Klancik’s knowledge relates to his time working at Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., 

his client interactions and Mr. Ruth’s role at Long Leaf Trading, Inc. (“Long Leaf”).

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/10/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:300
2

1033174\306901788.v5

B) A copy of, or the description by category and location, of all documents, data 

compilations and tangible things in the possession, custody or control of that party as described in 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B). 

Documents gathered during the CFTC investigation in response to CFTC’s subpoena

previously served on Defendant Ruth. Documents not responsive are in the files of Mr. Ruth’s 

former law firm, Chukah & Tecson and responsive documents were produced by Defendant Ruth 

to the CFTC previously.

C) A computation of every category of damages claimed by the disclosing party as 

described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). 

Not applicable.

D) the existence and contents of any insurance agreement under which any person or entity 

carrying on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of the judgment that may be 

entered in the action or indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment, making 

available such agreement for inspection and copying. 

Not applicable.

Andrew S. May, Esq. 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312.704.3400

amay@hinshawlaw.com

ARDC No. 6229796

Respectfully submitted, 

JEREMY S. RUTH

By:/s/Andrew S. May

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/10/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:301
3

1033174\306901788.v5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was filed electronically on November 10, 2020 

using the Court’s CMF/ECF system, which will accomplish service electronically on all counsel 

of record.

And via electronic mail to Docket Entry No. 13:

Andrew D. Nelson

267 May Street, Unit E

Elmhurst, Illinois 60126

adnelson0503@gmail.com

Date: November 10, 2020 /s/Andrew S. May

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 38 Filed: 11/10/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:302
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONFURNISHED PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PliantCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter endedMarch 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian E. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Brian E.  Johnson    |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Brian E.  Johnson        |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer |   |
| May 14, 2004             |   |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Marisa Christina, Incorporated:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-91078 and 33-91080) on Form S-8 of Marisa Christina, Incorporated of our
report dated March 7, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Marisa Christina, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000
and the related consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income
(loss), stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears
in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Marisa Christina,
Incorporated.



/s/ KPMG LLP



New York, New York
March 25, 2002
The Applications of Reinforcement Learning 

to Neutron Diffraction

Joseph Rath, William Ratcliff, Paul Kienzle
● Materials scatter neutrons 

○ Due to interactions with nuclei

○ Via strong force

● Scattered neutrons create diffraction patterns

What is Neutron Diffraction?

N

N

P N

N

P

θ

θ d
Why is it useful?

Materials have some ordered arrangement: Crystal Structure

Smallest repeating pattern in structure: Unit Cell

Atom positions and symmetries in unit cell reveal: Physical Properties

Diffraction patterns are dependent on a material’s:

○ Crystal structure/symmetry

○ Elemental composition

Analysis of them patterns:

○ Intensities -> Elemental composition

○ Patterns -> Crystal symmetries

○ Further -> Atomic positions / Properties
Problems Arise...

● Diffraction analysis takes time!

○ Lots of interaction/calculation

○ Small # of facilities

○ Beam-time limited/precious

● Solution:

○ Machine Learning → Efficient beam-time?

○ What kind of algorithm is best?
Reinforcement Learning Reward Hypothesis: An algorithm reaches 

some goal by maximizing cumulative reward
Reinforcement Learning
(.2)3 (.15) (.1) (.25) (.3)

Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO)

CRITIC

● Converges to some successful action set

● Handles larges action spaces

● Faster learning

Actor Critic

State: s

ACTOR

.....

Action Space: a
Crystallographic Environment

Sample: Pr2NiO4

Goal: Find Pr Z-position

Agent: Neutron Detector

Actions: 198 Possible Reflections

Reward: Chi2 Fit, Uncertainty, #Actions

h k l I

Atom X-pos Y-pos Z-pos
Results

Generated Reflections

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 50 100 150 200

Intensity

Q

Zexp Z0.36

Cubic Lattice:

h k l
Results

Generated Reflections

h k l
Results

Generated Reflections

h k l
Results

Generated Reflections

h k l

Z0.36
Results

Generated Reflections

h k l

~10
Discussion

Algorithm:

- Z-coordinate found!

- Fast convergence / low deviation

BUT

- Reward Function

- For a simple system

- Realistically could be very slow

Future:

- More parameters

- Better RL algorithms
References

• https://www.ill.eu/users/instruments/instrumentslist/orientexpress/how-it-works/principle-of-neutron-laue-diffraction/

• https://towardsdatascience.com/policy-gradients-in-a-nutshell8b72f9743c5d

• https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/an-introduction-to-policygradients-with-cartpole-and-doom-495b5ef2207f/

• https://www.ncnr.nist.gov/programs/crystallography/

• http://www.crystal0studio.com/news.php

• Dr. William Ratcliff

• Dr. Paul Kienzle

• SURF Directors: Julie Borchers & Joe Dura

• SHIP students: Jess & Kate

• Other NCNR SURFers

Acknowledgements
United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For: 

Arkansas 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, anddemonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate. 

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope 

Mass Echelon III Volume Transfer, II 25 kg to 1 mg 5 gal

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

NIST Office 

Effective Da

_________Katrice Lip

(Rev.: September 2021)
#### Jacob J. Sherman *et. al.*plaintiffs and appellants, *vs.*Thomas M. Brantley, defendant and respondent.

In an action to recover damages for the tort of the defendant, in fraudulently misrepresenting the responsibility of another, whereby the plaintiffs were induced to sell the latter, merchandise on credit, an order of arrest may be granted, under subdivision 1, of section 179 of the Code of Proceedure, where the defendant is a non-resident.

(Before Robertson, Ch. J., and Monell and McCunn, JJ.)

Heard December 21, 1867;

decided January —, 1868.

*56This is an appeal from, an order made at special term, vacating an order of arrest under which the defendant had been arrested and held to bail in $2500. The action is for damages for fraud and deceit on the part of the defendant, in representing one J. N. Land of Forsyth, Ga. the brother-in-law and a partner of the defendant, as perfectly good, and entitled to credit, whereby the plaintiffs were induced to sell him groceries, on a credit to the extent of $2560.74, of which $2260.74 remains unpaid. The plaintiffs’ affidavits, on which the order of arrest was granted, set forth a letter of the defendant, dated Forsyth, Ga. November 7th, 1866, containing the representation as to. Land’s solvency; the sale and credit induced thereby; the fact that shortly after the sale, the plaintiffs’ agent went to Georgia, and found that Land -had absconded, and was utterly worthless, and that by common fame he was known to be, and for several years had been without pecuniary responsibility, and unworthy of credit, and that the defendant himself admitted Land’s entire insolvency. The affidavit of one of the plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant was not a resident of this state, but resided at Forsyth, in the state of Georgia.

The defendant moved to vacate the order of arrest, upon affidavits amounting to a denial of the plaintiffs’ allegations ; without showing, however, that no cause of action existed. On an order to show cause, the order of arrest was vacated, and the defendant discharged.

*Wm. Allen Butler,*for the appellants, plaintiffs.

*Roger A. Prior,*for the respondent, defendant.

*By the Court,*Robertson, Ch. J.

The action in this case is not on contract, but for damages for the tort of the defendant in fraudulently misrepresenting the responsi*57bility of one J. N. Land, whereby the plaintiffs were induced to sell him merchandise. The allegation in one of the affidavits on which the order of arrest was issued, that the defendant is a *non-resident,*is not denied. I therefore cannot perceive upon what ground the order of arrest was vacated, as it certainly was properly granted, under the first subdivision of section *179 of*the Code.

The order appealed from must be reversed, without costs.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51295

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAUL CHAVEZ-ZARZA, also known as Romero Gonzalez-Zarza,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. ER-01-CR-1125-1-EP

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

August 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Chavez-Zarza (“Chavez”) appeals the sentencing

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the

United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b)(2). Chavez argues that the felony conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been

charged in his indictment. He also argues that in light of
No. 01-51295

-2-

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the district court

erred in imposing a sentence greater than the two-year maximum

sentence permissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 because the Government

did not plead Chavez’ prior aggravated felony in the indictment.

Chavez acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he

seeks to preserve the issues for Supreme Court review. Apprendi

did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at

489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). Chavez’ argument

is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 235.

For the foregoing reasons Chavez’ sentence is AFFIRMED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3845

To amend the Act of August 13, 1946, to raise the maximum amount 

that may be allotted by the Secretary of the Army for the construction 

of small shore and beach restoration and protection projects, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 26, 2004

Mr. CALVERT (for himself, Mr. LAMPSON, Mr. ISSA, and Mr. MCINTYRE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend the Act of August 13, 1946, to raise the maximum 

amount that may be allotted by the Secretary of the 

Army for the construction of small shore and beach 

restoration and protection projects, 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. SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION AND 

4 PROTECTION PROJECTS. 

5 Section 3 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 

6 426g), is amended—
2

•HR 3845 IH 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘$30,000,000’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘$50,000,000’’; and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘$3,000,000’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘$10,000,000’’.

Æ
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION FURNISHEDPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Pliant Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Harold C. Bevis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)    The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   | /s/ Harold C.  Bevis      |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Harold C. Bevis           |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|   |                      |
|   | November 13, 2007         |

 

----
#### Keith D. SNYDER, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-7019.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2004.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Alisandro Martinez

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02890

Honorable Martha M. Pacold

Agnieszka J. Zeiba, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, September 23, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable M. David Weisman: Defendants' agreed

motion for entry of HIPAA Protective order [25] is granted. Enter order. Mailed notice

(ao,)

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-02890 Document #: 26 Filed: 09/23/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:107
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 315

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 8, 1997

Mr. GEPHARDT submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

laid on the table

RESOLUTION

Relating to a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the election contest concerning the 46th District of

California should be dismissed as there is no credible evidence to show that the outcome of the election is different than the election of Congresswoman Loretta

Sanchez;

Whereas State of California authorities should continue an

investigation into any questionable registration activities;

and

Whereas the Committee on House Oversight should examine

voter registration procedures: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the contest in the 46th District of

2 California is dismissed.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 44 Agreed to House (ATH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 44

 Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 1997

Mr. Underwood submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, 
elected to the following standing committee of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: Mr. Berman.
                                 <all>
```