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

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARIO ANDJUAN PEEPLES, )

Petitioner, )

vs. ) Civil Action 09-0614-KD-N

MOBILE COUNTY SHERIFF’S )

DEPARTMENT, 

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s federal habeas corpus petition, filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, “[t]he district court must

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.”

A certificate of appealability may issue only where “the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243(c)(2). When a habeas petition

is dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of any underlying constitutional

claim, “a COA should issue [only] when the prisoner shows . . . that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). 

Peeples filed his petition against the Mobile County Sheriff’s Department. However,

Case 1:09-cv-00614-KD-N Document 5 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
“[u]nder Alabama law, a county sheriff's department lacks the capacity to be sued.” Dean v.

Barber, 951 F.2d 1210,1215 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted) (finding that the district court

correctly dismissed Dean's case against the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department) (citing 

White v. Birch, 582 So.2d 1085, 1087 (Ala. 1991); see also Warren v. Perkins, 2009 WL

2882139 (S.D. Ala. September 1, 2009). Because Peeples filed suit against an entity which is

not a legal entity subject to suit or liability, reasonable jurists could not find it debatable whether

the Court erred in dismissing the petition without prejudice. Accordingly, a certificate of

appealability is denied. 

DONE this 7th day of January, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00614-KD-N Document 5 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2064 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2064

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
   Office of the President, Executive Residence at the White House, 
                Operating Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
   Office of the President, Executive Residence at the White House, 
                Operating Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 
              THE PRESIDENT, EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE, 
              OPERATING EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Executive Office of the 
President, Executive Residence at the White House, Operating Expenses 
for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $13,081,000.
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of Global Diversified Industries, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I , Phil
Hamilton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ Phil
Hamilton


Phil
Hamilton


Chief
Executive Officer




October23,
2008
#### Gordon Todd SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stanley GLANZ, Tulsa Sheriff; Tim Harris, Tulsa D.A.; Gordon McAllister, Tulsa County Judge; Brad Henry, Governor; John Does, Unknown Director of ODOC and Unknown Warden of LARC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-5095.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 27, 2007.

Gordon Todd Skinner, Hominy, OK, pro se.

*31Before KELLY, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Gordon Todd Skinner, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

At the time Mr. Skinner filed his complaint, he was in custody at the David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center (“DLMCHC”), the Tulsa County Jail Facility. In Mr. Skinner’s complaint, he alleged that his life was in serious danger because he was going to be transferred into the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (“ODOC”) at the Lexington Assessment and Reception Center (“LARC”), where his identity as a government informant had been made known to gang members. He asserted also that he was being denied access to any form of a law library and other materials needed to protect his legal needs. He sued Stanley Ganz, Sheriff of Tulsa County; Tim Harris, Tulsa County District Attorney; and Gordon McAllister, Tulsa County District Judge (“the Tulsa County defendants”); as well as Brad Henry, Governor of Oklahoma; the unknown Director of the ODOC; and the Unknown Warden of LARC. He sought injunctive relief in the form of an order preventing his transfer into the custody of the ODOC and an order allowing him access to the DLMCHC law library and to his legal paperwork. While his complaint was pending, Mr. Skinner was transferred into the custody of the ODOC. As a result, the district court dismissed Mr. Skinner’s complaint because it determined that his request for injunctive relief against the Tulsa County defendants was moot and that his complaint failed to state a claim for relief against the remaining defendants.

Having reviewed Mr. Skinner’s brief, the record, and the relevant legal authority, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court’s Opinion and Order dated May 24, 2007, 2007 WL 1541499. All pending motions filed by Mr. Skinner are DENIED. We remind Mr. Skinner that he remains obligated to make partial payments until his entire appellate filing fee is paid.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### Maria R. SOLIS-DE MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76476.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2006.

Filed June 12, 2006.

Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.

CAS-Distriet Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marshall Tamor Golding, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Maria Solis-De Mendoza petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s dismissal of her appeal from a removal order. An immigration judge found clear and convincing evidence that Mendoza is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) for knowingly aiding her brother Sandro illegally enter the United States.

First, Mendoza proffers no evidence that she was detained by the same immigration officer who later interviewed her regarding her knowledge of Sandro’s immigration status. Thus, there is no violation of 8 C.F.R. § 287.3.

Second, the interviewing officer’s failure to preserve her handwritten notes of the initial interviews did not violate Mendoza’s due process rights. Mendoza’s 1-213 Form did not contain any information derived from the initial interviews, and the IJ did not rely upon any such information in making his finding that Mendoza is inadmissible.

Third, the admission of the interviewing officer’s hearsay testimony regarding Sandro’s inculpatory statements did not violate Mendoza’s due process rights. Having reviewed the BIA’s decision, we conclude that its holding that Mendoza is inadmissible under § 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) would be the same absent Sandro’s statements. Thus, Mendoza fails to show that she was prejudiced by the improper admission of the testimony. *Cf Hernandez-Guadarrama v. Ashcroft,*394 F.3d 674, 681-82 (9th Cir.2005).

Fourth, the IJ’s finding that Mendoza is incredible is supported by substantial evidence, including her inconsistent statements, given under oath, regarding her knowledge of Sandro’s immigration status.

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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 Yearly Report of China Yida Holding, Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Chen Minhua, Chief Executive Officer, certify, 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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the results of operations of the Company.








/s/  Chen Minhua


Chen Minhua


Chief Executive Officer





Dated: February 3, 2012
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | May 9, 2007                                                         |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                |   |
|   |                                                                |   |
|   | ***/s/                Michael J. Rogers***                          |   |
|   | Michael                J. Rogers                                    |   |
|   | Executive                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   | Principal                Financial Officer                          |   |

----
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DAVID W OODS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30263

D.C . No. 9:14-c r-00027-DLC -7
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, C h ie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 6, 2016 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : PAEZ a

nd B Y B EE, C i rc uit Judge s a nd TIGAR , *** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Da vid W oods a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of his
m otion to dism

iss theindic tm e nt on double je opa rdy grounds. “ W e re v ie w de



# FIL ED JUN 17 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Jon S. Tiga

r, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.nov o a

distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to dism

iss the indic tm e nt on double je opa rdy grounds.” Unite d State

s v . Bate s , 917 F.2d 388, 392 (9th C ir. 1990). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd a ffirm
. First, the suc c e ssive prose c ution of c h arge s in two se pa rate ve nue s whic h

“ involvedistinc t

tra nsa c tions oc c urring a

t diffe re nt tim e s ” doe s not viola t e the Double Je opa

rdy C la u s e . Unite d State

s v . Sac c oc c ia , 18 F.3d 795, 799 (9th C ir. 1994). He re , no doubleje opa rdy viola tion oc c urre d be c a

use W oods’ c onvic tions in the W e ste rn Distric t of Ne w York a nd the Distric t

of M o nta na involve d his pa rtic i pation in two diffe

re nt onlinec hild pornogra phy bulle tin boa

rds, a nd W oods ha s not shown the s e boa

rds we re re late d

in a ny wa y . Se c ond, e ve n a ssum ing tha t the prose c utions in M onta n a and Ne w York involve d the sa

m e a c t s or tra

nsa c tions, “ [a ] substa

ntive c rim e and a

c onspira c y

to
c om m it tha t c rim e are not thesa

m e offe nse for double je o pa rdy purpose s.” Sac c oc c ia , 18 F.3d a

t 798 (c i ting Unite d State s v . Fe lix , 503 U.S. 378, 389 (1992)). The re fore , no doubleje opa rdy viola tion oc c urre d for the a dditional re a son tha t W oods ple a de d guilty

to distribution of c

hild pornogra

phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(2)(A) in the W e ste rn Distric t of Ne w York, whilehe ple a de d guilty to c onspirac

y to a dve rtise c hild pornogra phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 2251(d) & (e ) in the Distric t of M o nta na . AFFIRM E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001091164
<NAME>                        newagecities.com, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                               1
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     812,569
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                97,073
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           922,117
<PP&E>                                     86,524
<DEPRECIATION>                             9,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             7182,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1,123,410
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   122,003
<OTHER-SE>                                 (90,511)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               5,937,574
<SALES>                                    2,672
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           2,672
<CGS>                                      1,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,293,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         646,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,939,134)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,939,134)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,939,134)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.54)




</TABLE>
11675.

#### Hillsman *v.*The State.

Decided November 11, 1920.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Oconee superior court- — • Judge Cobb, June 8, 1920.

*Wolver M. Smith, John B. Gamble,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. O. Dean, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworm, J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence being cumulative and impeaching in its character, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling this ground of the motion for a new trial.

2. There is sufficient evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the judge who tried the case, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Lwhe, J., oonowr.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1949 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

Federal Administration for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, Federal Administration for fiscal 

year 2024. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FEDERAL ADMINIS5 TRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:15 Apr 14, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1949.IH H1949

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1949 IH

1 able for Department of Labor, Federal Administration for 

2 fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $43,248,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4687 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4687

 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 
   Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations to pay for critical access 
hospital services and rural health clinic services at a rate that is at 
 least 101 percent of the payment rate otherwise applicable under the 
                           Medicare Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2004

 Mr. Kind (for himself and Mr. Osborne) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition 
      to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 
   Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations to pay for critical access 
hospital services and rural health clinic services at a rate that is at 
 least 101 percent of the payment rate otherwise applicable under the 
                           Medicare Program.

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

SECTION 1. MINIMUM PAYMENT RATE BY MEDICARE ADVANTAGE ORGANIZATIONS FOR 
              CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITAL SERVICES AND RURAL HEALTH CLINIC 
              SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1857(e) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-27(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Payments for inpatient and outpatient critical access 
        hospital services and rural health clinic services.--A contract 
        under this section with an MA organization for the offering of 
        an MA plan shall require the organization to provide for a 
        payment rate under the plan for inpatient and outpatient 
        critical access hospital services and for rural health clinic 
        services furnished to enrollees of the plan (whether or not the 
        services are furnished pursuant to an agreement between such 
        organization and a critical access hospital or a rural health 
        clinic) that is not less than 101 percent of the applicable 
        payment rate established for such services under part A or part 
        B.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to Medicare Advantage contract years beginning on or after 
January 1, 2005.
                                 <all>
```