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

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

In	Re: )

)

RICHARD	D.	HORNE and	 )

PATRICIA	NELSON	HORNE, )

)

Debtors, )

)

MARY	BETH	MANTIPLY, )

) CIVIL	ACTION	NO.	13-00258-CB-B

Plaintiff/Appellant, )

)

v. )

)

RICHARD	D.	HORNE	and )

PATRICIA	NELSON	HORNE, )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

ORDER

Appellees have	filed	a	motion	for	award	of	additional	attorneys’	fees	in	

connection	with	the	second	of	two	appeals.	(Doc.	69.)		Appellant	has	filed	an	

objection	to	the	motion.		By	separate	opinion	entered	this	date,	this	Court	has	once	

again	affirmed	the	decision	of	the	bankruptcy	court.		However,	Appellees	are	not	

entitled	to	recover	attorneys’	fees	incurred	in	the	second	appeal.		

In	support	of	their	motion,	Appellees	argue	that	“[a]ppellate	attorneys’	fees	

and	costs	are	recoverable	herein	under	this	Court’s	order	of	October	28,	2013	(Doc.	

36),	adopting	the	holding	of	Parker	v.	Pioneer	Credit	Co.	of	Ala.	(In	re	Parker),	419	

B.R.	474,	476	(M.D.	Ala.	2009),	that	appellate	attorneys’	fees	constitute	continuing	

mandatory	damages	in	the	appeal	of	the	Bankruptcy	Court	herein.”		(Appellees’	Mot.	

¶	1.)		To	be	clear,	that	order	held	that	attorneys’	fees	were	mandatory	and	

Case 1:13-cv-00258-CB-B Document 73 Filed 04/08/14 Page 1 of 2
recoverable	on	appeal	under	11	U.S.C.	§	362(k)	and	Parker	for	violation	of	the	

automatic	stay.

1 The	second	appeal (for	which	Appellees	now	seek	additional	

attorneys’	fees) involves	violation	of	the	discharge	injunction.

2		Neither	Parker	nor

the	Court’s	prior	order	authorizes	recovery	of	attorneys’	fees	incurred	on	appeal	of	

sanctions	for	violation	of	the	discharge	injunction.		

The	motion	is,	therefore,	DENIED.

DONE and	ORDERED this	the	8th day	of	April,	2014.

s/Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.	

Senior	United	States	District	Judge

																																																							 1 The	first	appeal	involved	violations	of	both	the	automatic	stay	and	the	

discharge	injunction.		

2 See	Opinion	of	April	8,	2014,	at	13.

Case 1:13-cv-00258-CB-B Document 73 Filed 04/08/14 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Curtis YARBROUGH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-50580.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Decided June 19, 2006.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.

Michael Tanaka, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, fof Defendant — Appellant.

Curtis Yarbrough, Metropolitan Detention Center, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Curtis Yarbrough appeals from the district court’s imposition of a condition of supervised release after a guilty-plea conviction for three counts of bank robbery *682and two counts of attempted bank robbery, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Yarbrough contends that the district comet’s imposition of a condition of supervised release that requires him to pay all or part of the costs of his drug and psychiatric treatment is an improper delegation of the court’s exclusive authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3672 to the probation officer. This contention is foreclosed by our holding in *United States v. Dupas,*419 F.3d 916, 922-24 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2121 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2121

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
     Agencies, Federal Citizen Services Fund, 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 Independent 
     Agencies, Federal Citizen Services Fund, 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 INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, FEDERAL CITIZEN SERVICES FUND, FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Federal Citizen Services Fund, for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$55,000,000.
                                 <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 OMNOVA Solutions Inc. on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended November 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to such officers knowledge:



| | (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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Kevin M. McMullenKevin M. McMullenChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President/s/ Michael E. HicksMichael E. HicksSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Treasurer


Date: March 30, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Accountants**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-129271) of ABB Ltd pertaining to the ABB Employee ShareAcquisition Plan - US Share Acquisition Sub-Plan of our report dated February11, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of Jorf Lasfar EnergyCompany S.C.A. included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) of ABB Ltd forthe year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 
| /S/ Price Waterhouse |   |
|----------------------|--------|
|                 |
| Casablanca, Morocco  |
| April 17, 2006       |

 

 

----
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 Viral Genetics, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Haig Keledjian, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 15, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Haig Keledjian     
|                   |  |     |  | Haig Keledjian         
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Viral Genetics, Inc.
and will be retained by Viral Genetics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139816

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139816 COA: 285560 Muskegon CC: 07-055641-FC CEDRIC DEWONG ALLEN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 22, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 77915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30464]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80


Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 72 to 80, 
revised as of July 1, 2014, on page 711, in Sec.  80.75, remove the 
first introductory paragraph, including the bold text at the end of the 
paragraph: ``Reporting requirements''.

[FR Doc. 2014-30464 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROY WARDEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

BOB WALKUP, individually and in his

official capacity as Tucson City Mayor; et

al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16440

D.C. No. 4:13-cv-01067-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2016** 

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Roy Warden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims arising from his removal from a

public park and arrest at a city council meeting. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

OCT 05 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of claim preclusion. 

Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We vacate and

remand.

In light of our disposition in Warden v. Robinson et al., No. 14-15803, we

vacate the judgment in this action and remand to the district court because there is

currently no final judgment on the merits precluding this action. See Stewart, 297

F.3d at 956 (stating the requirements for application of claim preclusion, including

a final judgment on the merits). We express no opinion on the merits of Warden’s

claims.

Warden’s motion to correct the caption, filed on July 28, 2014, is denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 14-16440
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6 2**  **1 3** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,

v. DUSTIN ALAN HILL , Defendant

– Appell ant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern Di strict of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. W. Earl Britt , Senior District Judge. ( 5 : 0 9

- h c - 0 2 0 69

- BR )

Submitted : September 20, 2010 Decided: November 4, 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirme d by un published per curiam opinion

.

T homas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce , Assistant Federal Public Defender, Susan Umstead, Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May

Parker , A ssistant United States Attorney, David T

. Huban d , Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dustin Hill appeals the district court’s order finding that he continues to satisfy the criteria for commitment set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (a) (2006) and continuing his commitment to the custody of the Attorney General. We affirm.
At a hearing, Dr. Jill Grant, a clinical psychologist
at FM C

- Butner, testified that Hill suffers from disorganized type of schizophrenia. Evaluators also gave Hill a “ rule

- out ” diagnosis of schizo

- affective disorder, bipolar type, “ based on his symptoms of mania, hypomania, and depressive episodes throughout the years . ” Dr. Holly Rogers, an independent evaluator, concurred that Hill suffer s from disorganized schizophrenia. She testified that Hill’s psychiatric illness is only partially controlled with medication and that his poor judgment and poor impulse contro l increase the likelihood of future dangerousness. Dr. Rogers agreed with Dr. Grant that Hill satisfie s the criteria for continued commitment set forth in § 4246. Based on this testimony and other evidence of record, including a forensic update, the dist rict court found by clear and convincing evidence that Hill meets the criteria for commitment. The court ordered that Hill’s commitment continue. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its determination th at Hill presently suffers “from a mental disease or defect as a3 result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another.” See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a); United States v. Cox , 9 64
F. 2d 1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992) (stating standard of review). We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Tim FLORENCE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4936.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 10, 2006.

Decided: June 16, 2006.

Ames C. Chamberlin, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael Augustus DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Tim Florence pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute 95.7 grams of cocaine base “crack” and was sentenced to 268 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issues: whether (1) the district court complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in conducting Florence’s plea hearing, and (2) the sentence was reasonable. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We do not find that the district court plainly erred at Florence’s plea hearing. *United States v. General,*278 F.3d 389, 393 (4th Cir.2002) (stating review standard). The court complied with Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 in conducting the hearing. Next, we do not find that Florence’s sentence was unreasonable. *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 261, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (stating review standard); *United States v. Hughes,*401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir.2005) (same). Therefore, these claims fail.

*275We have examined the entire record in this case, in accordance with the requirements of *Anders,*and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### In the Matter of Eric Lee Bennett, Respondent, v Casey Marie Schultz, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 244]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 18, 2012, as, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify a prior order of the same court dated August 3, 2009, so as to award him sole legal and physical custody of the subject child.

*793Ordered that the order dated December 18, 2012, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child *(see Matter of Sidorowicz v Sidorowicz,*101 AD3d 737, 738 [2012]; *Matter of Englese v Strauss,*83 AD3d 705, 706 [2011]; *Matter of Said v Said,*61 AD3d 879, 880 [2009]). Parental alienation of a child from the other parent, including willful interference with his or her visitation rights, is “an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the [offending party] is unfit to act as custodial parent” *(Entwistle v Entwistle,*61 AD2d 380, 384-385 [1978]; *see Matter of Lawlor v Eder,*106 AD3d 739, 740 [2013]; *Matter of Doroski v Ashton,*99 AD3d 902, 903 [2012]; *Matter of Ahmad v Naviwala,*306 AD2d 588, 591 [2003]). As custody determinations turn in large part on assessments of the credibility, character, temperament, and sincerity of the parties, the Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173-174 [1982]; *Matter of Doroski v Ashton,*99 AD3d at 903). Here, the court’s determinations that there had been a change in circumstances, and that a transfer of sole legal and physical custody to the father would be in the child’s best interests, have a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, should not be disturbed *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d at 171; *Matter of Lawlor v Eder,*106 AD3d at 740; *Matter of Doroski v Ashton,*99 AD3d at 903; *cf. Matter of Martinez v Hyatt,*86 AD3d 571, 572 [2011]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00680-CG-B

CARL WATSON, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this court. 

It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and to obey the court's order.

DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00680-CG-B Document 11 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Warren J. Glover, Appellant.

[971 NYS2d 915]—

*1204Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A. Keenan, J.), rendered May 14, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [4]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly refused to suppress his written and oral statements to the police. The record establishes that defendant’s statements were voluntarily made; there is no indication in the record of the suppression hearing that he “ ‘was intoxicated to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements’ ” *(People v Schompert,*19 NY2d 300, 305 [1967], *cert denied*389 US 874 [1967]; *see People v Peterkin,*89 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 885 [2012]; *People v Prober,*298 AD2d 966, 967 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 538 [2002]). Present — Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni and Lindley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,056,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,797
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     937,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,056,250
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (79,803)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,654
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 73,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             73,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    73,149
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43


</TABLE>