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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT L. JOHNSON, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 05-0389-WS-D

 )

LEVAN THOMAS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

On November 8, 2005, the undersigned entered an Order (doc. 17) denying plaintiff Robert L.

Johnson’s request to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees and costs. Thereafter, Johnson, an

Alabama state prison inmate proceeding pro se in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

submitted a Prisoner Consent Form on Appeal (doc. 19), authorizing the withdrawal and payment of

partial filing fees and incremental partial payments from his prison account until the full $255 filing fee on

appeal has been paid.

The problem with plaintiff’s Prisoner Consent Form is that it presupposes that he has been

granted in forma pauperis status on appeal. In fact, he has been denied such status, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b). The effect of the denial of plaintiff’s in forma pauperis request is that he must

prepay the entire appellate filing fee in full. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir.

1997) (when a prisoner seeks to appeal in a civil action in forma pauperis, “the only issue is whether

the inmate pays the entire fee at the initiation of the proceeding or over a period of time under an

installment plan.”); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999) (appeals may be made

“despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is granted IFP status”). As one appellate court has

explained, “if the district judge certifies that the appeal has not been taken in good faith, then the judge

must not invoke the periodic-payment system established by § 1915(b). If the appeal is not in good

faith, and the litigant therefore is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, then the docket and filing

Case 1:05-cv-00389-WS-D Document 20 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 2
-2-

fees must be prepaid in full.” Hyche v. Christensen, 170 F.3d 769, 770-71 (7th Cir. 1999) (overruled

on other grounds by Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2000)); see also Baugh v. Taylor, 117

F.3d 197, 200 (5th Cir. 1997) (“A prisoner litigant who has been denied IFP status for appeal, or

whose appeal has been certified as taken in bad faith, must pay the full filing fee and other costs when

due, without the benefit of the accommodating assessment procedures found in section 1915(b).”).

Inasmuch as the undersigned has denied IFP status to Johnson on appeal, he is not entitled to

avail himself of the partial payment procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). His Prisoner Consent

Form on Appeal represents a clear attempt to do just that; therefore, it is deemed moot. Johnson

remains responsible for prepaying the entire $255 filing fee for his appeal.

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2005.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00389-WS-D Document 20 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 2
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 12, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00586-CR

EX PARTE WILLIAM SOLOMON LEWIS

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1678565

MEMORANDUM OPINION

William Solomon Lewis appealed from an order denying his application for 

a writ of habeas corpus, in which he sought reduction of pretrial bond. On July 1, 

2021, Lewis was convicted of retaliation and sentenced to confinement for eight 

years in prison. Our record has been supplemented with the judgment of that 

conviction. 

Issues regarding pretrial bail are moot when the accused is no longer subject 

to pretrial confinement. See Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620, 620 (Tex. Crim. 
2

App. 1992); Bennet v. State, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 1991, no pet.). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, December 17, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC.

                    The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the public. Seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:00 a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at                     *www.sec.gov.*

On December 3, 2014 the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release No. 33-9683), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting.

The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities laws.

For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: December 8, 2014.

 Brent J. Fields, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-29183 Filed 12-9-14; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. III


(A Limited Partnership)





EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Qualified Housing Tax Credits L.P. III (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
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 Partnership.











/s/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street III, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Qualified


Housing Tax Credits L.P. III





Date: February 14, 2011








A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

Presidential 

Commission on 

Enhancing 

National 

Cybersecurity

Kiersten E. Todt

Executive Director
Executive Order 13718

2

“To enhance cybersecurity awareness and protections at all levels of Government, business, 

and society, to protect privacy, to ensure public safety and economic and national security, 

and to empower Americans to take better control of their digital security” 

Goals of Commission

Develop a narrative and a set of recommendations

• Short-term, practical actions to ambitious, long-term proposals 

• Enhance digital economy infrastructure and increase resilience 

to emerging cybersecurity threats

Audience

Individual consumers, small and medium-sized businesses, 

large corporations, and local, state, and federal government

Deliverable

Report due to the President on December 1, 2016
Key Issues

• Federal Agency Roles and Responsibilities

• Critical Infrastructure Protection and Resilience

• Cybersecurity Workforce Development

• Security for the Internet of Things

• Research and Development

• Public Awareness and Education

• State and Local Government 

• Data and Identity Theft Protection

• International Norms

• Cyber Insurance

• Metrics

3
Methodology

• Convene five public meetings focused on a subset of the key issues

• New York, NY: Finance and Cyber Insurance

• Berkeley, CA: Research and Development, 

Innovation and Workforce

• Houston, TX: Critical Infrastructure 

and State and Local Government

• Minneapolis, MN: Consumer and 

Data and Identity Theft Protection 

• Washington, DC: Federal Agency Roles and 

Responsibilities

• Request for Information

• Solicit public sector input on key issues

• Integrate relevant input into Commission Report

• R&D working groups

4
Objectives

• Develop impactful report with actionable 

recommendations that address securing and 

advancing the digital economy over the next 3, 5, 

and 10 years

• Raising visibility of current, effective cybersecurity 

efforts (i.e., NIST initiatives)

• Moving the needle on cybersecurity; creating a cultural 

shift

• Report will serve as a cybersecurity roadmap for 

the next administration

5
Questions

6
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and
that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |                                                                      
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 11, 2004 |  | /s/    JEFFREY D.
SERKESJeffrey D.
Serkes Principal Financial Officer
11178.

#### Bingham *v.*Haines.

Smith, J.

1. A possessory warrant lies only for the recovery of personal property, and not for the recovery of realty. *Gainous*v. *Martin,*10 *Ga. App.*210 (72 S. E. 1100).

*(a) “A*crop of corn not detached from the soil, whether mature or immature, is a part of the realty.” *Newton County*v. *Boyd,*148 *Ga. 761*(98 S. E. 347), and cit. Shrubbery and flowers planted by a tenant are, when not detached from the soil, realty, and cannot be removed by him, *Wright*v. *DuBignon,*114 *Ga. 765, 771*(40 S. E. 747, 57 L. R. A. 669).

2. It follows that a possessory warrant will not lie to recover shrubbery and flowers attached to the realty. Even had this been the proper remedy, the municipal court of Savannah did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try such a suit (Ga. L. 1915, p. 124, § 3) ; and while jurisdiction of the person may be waived by appearance and pleading to the merits, a party to an action cannot thus confer jurisdiction upon a court which has no jurisdiction of the *subject-matter*of the suit. *Chapman*v. *Silver,*18 *Ga. App.*476 (2) (89 S. E. 590).

3. Moreover, the first grant of a new trial by a judge of the superior court,- on certiorari to review a verdict and judgment of a municipal court, will not be disturbed where the verdict was not demanded by the *137evidence. *Charles W. Tway Co.*v. *Hedenburg,*24 *Ga. App.*520 (101 S. E. 199), and cit.

Decided April 8, 1920.

Certiorari; from Chatham superior court —• Judge Meldrim. November 10, 1919.

*Simon N. Gazan,*for plaintiff.

*Anderson, Cann, Cann & Walsh,*for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1521 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to expand the definition of an 

active duty military consumer for purposes of certain credit monitoring 

requirements, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2023 

Ms. STEFANIK (for herself, Mr. KIM of New Jersey, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, 

Mr. EZELL, and Mr. KHANNA) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to expand the 

definition of an active duty military consumer for purposes of certain credit monitoring requirements, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Servicemember Credit 

5 Monitoring Enhancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CREDIT MONITORING. 

7 Section 605A(k) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 

8 U.S.C. 1681c–1(k)) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1521 IH

1 (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as fol2 lows: 

3 ‘‘(1) UNIFORMED SERVICES MEMBER CON4 SUMER DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘uni5 formed services member consumer’ means a con6 sumer who is a member of the uniformed services 

7 (as such term is defined under section 101(a) of title 

8 10, United States Code).’’; and 

9 (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘active 

10 duty military consumer’’ and inserting ‘‘uniformed 

11 services member consumer’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre S. JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10326.

D.C. No. CR 99-0398-1-SI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 2001.*

Decided May 24, 2001.

*525Before SNEED, SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable *525for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for Western Washington, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Andre Johnson appeals his conviction for firearm possession by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not detail them here except as necessary.

Johnson pleaded guilty to Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After pleading guilty but prior to being sentenced, Johnson moved to dismiss the case on the ground that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional. He argued that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause in enacting 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court denied the motion and entered judgment and sentence.

On appeal, Johnson again argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The resolution of this appeal is controlled by our recent decision in *United States v. Davis,*242 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.2001), in which we specifically held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) does not violate the Commerce Clause.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4879 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4879

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

        To increase the military housing private investment cap.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4879

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
        To increase the military housing private investment cap.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Housing Improvement Act of 
2004.''

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATE INVESTMENT CAP.

    Section 2883(g)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``$850,000,000'' and inserting ``$1,350,000,000''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 21, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6695
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BARRY MCCORMICK, a/k/a Dut-lo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-39-H) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 21, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry McCormick, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to extend the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm because Appellant's motion was untimely. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0199

In the Matter of:

S.G.-H.M., Jr.,

A Former Youth under the Age of 18.

GRANT OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

Pursuant to authority granted under M. R. App. P. 26(1), Plaintiff and 

Appellee the State of Montana is given an extension of time to and including 

October 19, 2020 to prepare, file, and serve its response brief. 

DATED this ____ day of September, 2020.

_____________________________

BOWEN GREENWOOD

Clerk of the Supreme Court

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 14 2020

09/14/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0199
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

 In connection with the  Quarterly Report of  First Cash Financial  Services,
 Inc. (the "Company") on  Form 10-Q for the  quarterly period ended June  30,
 2004, as  filed with  the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on  the  date
 hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip E.  Powell certify, pursuant to 18  U.S.C.
 Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
 of 2002, that to my knowledge:

   (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended; 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:  August 6, 2004


 /s/ PHILLIP E. POWELL
 --------------------------------------
 Phillip E. Powell
 Chief Executive Officer
J

- A10028

- 19

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

GERALD L. RODGERS

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1821 EDA 2017 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 6, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0010255

- 2015

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 22 , 2019
Gerald L. Rodgers appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on
June 6, 2017 , in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County , following

his non

- jury conviction of terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another
person, carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm
prohibited, carrying a firearm in public in Philadelphia, possessing an instrument of crime, and criminal conspiracy . We affirm the judgment of

sentence

. On appeal, Rodgers raises a si ngle issue for our review: “D id the court

err as a matter of law where it admitted the altered video tape which purported

to show the assault on the complaining witnesses

. ” Rodgers’ Brief, at 6.
However, the video is not included in the certified record . It is impossible for

th is Court to address the merits of Rodgers’ claim and make a properJ

- A10028

- 19

- 2

-

determination, without viewing the video to determine whether the trial court
abused its discretion in denying Rodgers’ motion. It is an appellant’ s responsibility to ensure that the certified record contains all the items
necessary to review his claims. See Commonwealth v. B.D.G. , 959 A.2d
362, 372 (Pa. Super. 2008). “When a claim is dependent on materials not
provided in the certified record, tha t claim is considered waived.”

Commonwealth v. Petroll , 696 A.2d 817, 836 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citation
omitted) , affirmed , 738 A.2d 993 (Pa. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 4/22/19
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 1, 2004 (the Report) of Ruby Tuesday,
Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, I, Marguerite N. Duffy, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | 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) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                                                                    
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/Marguerite N. Duffy                                             
| | Marguerite N. DuffySenior Vice President andChief Financial Officer