alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6265

TIMOTHY DARRELL DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(4:11-cv-03263-MGL)

Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Darrell Davis, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Darrell Davis seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Davis’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### MAX E. MILLER *& SON, INC.,*Plaintiff, v. Sandra LEWIS et al., Defendants, Lewis Center Management Corp., First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, Additional Party Defendants.

No. 70-C-214.

United States District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

Feb. 23, 1971.

*551Howard, Peterman and Eisenberg by Russell A. Eisenberg, Milwaukee, Wis., Arvey, Hodes and Mantynband, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Foley and Lardner by James O. Huber, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants.

DECISION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

The plaintiff has moved for leave to file an amended complaint. The defendant, First Wisconsin National Bank, has opposed the proposed amendment.

The action was started in the northern district of Illinois in September, 1966, to enforce two judgment liens arising out of judgments entered in that court in June, 1966. Three and a half years later, the case was ordered transferred to this court and the plaintiff now seeks to amend its complaint so as to obtain declaratory relief determining the various interests in the real estate, as well ,as to let the plaintiff enforce its judgment liens.

The plaintiff refers to the practice of liberally allowing amendments under Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 15.08 [2] (1968).

The proposed amended complaint would be the fourth to be filed in this action by the plaintiff. More importantly, four and a half years have elapsed since the commencement of this action. Although the plaintiff urges otherwise, I believe that the proposed amendment would substantially change the gist of the proceedings. In my opinion, the ends of justice will not be promoted by the proposed amendment. See Green v. Walsh, 21 F.R.D. 15 (E.D.Wis.1957).

Under all the circumstances of this case, I conclude that the proposed amendment to this complaint should more properly be attempted (if it can be done) by the commencement of a new action, rather than by appending new claims to the present aging law suit.

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the plaintiff’s motion to amend be and hereby is denied.
No. 87-1043.

#### United States *v.*Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.

C. A. 6th Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 958.] Motion of the Solicitor General to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**SYMBION, INC.**

 

**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 Report of Symbion, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Teresa F. Sparks, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)          To the best of my knowledge informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                      | /s/ Teresa F. Sparks                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      | Teresa F. Sparks                      |
|                      | Senior Vice President  of Finance and |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer               |
|                      |                                  |
|                      |                                  |
| Date: March 31, 2010 |                                  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2134 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2134

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
  Agencies, Office of Personnel Management, Salaries and 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 Independent 
  Agencies, Office of Personnel Management, Salaries and 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 INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, SALARIES AND 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Office of Personnel Management, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $132,172,000.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 7217

JESSE VERNON LALONE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF PHILLIP THOMPSON; WAYNE OWENS, Director; JOSEPH

JOHNSON, Major; SANDRA LOWE, Sergeant,

Defendants

- Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at

Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:18

- cv

- 03232

- HMH)

Submitted: April 30, 2020 Decided: May 7, 2020

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse Vernon LaLone, Appellant Pro Se. J.W. Nelson Chandler, CHANDLER &

DUDGEON LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM:

Jesse Vernon LaLone appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised LaLone that failure to file timely, specific objecti ons to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of t he recommendation when the

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy , 858

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins

, 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see

also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). LaLone argues on appeal that he properly

objected to all portions of the magistrate judge’s report. We disagree. Although LaLone

received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation, he has waived appellate review of his due process claim because the

objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the

magistrate judge relating to the availability of postconviction remedies. See Martin , 858

F.3d at 245 (holdin g that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a

party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity

so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (inte rnal

quotation marks omitted)).

2We also conclude that, although LaLone specifically objected to the sovereign

immunity question, he has forfeited appellate review of that issue because he makes no

argument in his informal brief on appeal that such immunity is inapplicable or otherwise

waived. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

According ly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny LaLone’s

motion to appoint counsel, and w e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3
Exhibit 32.2

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

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 Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Stanton, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ John D. StantonJohn D. StantonPrincipal Financial Officer
October 20, 2010
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.2     Agreement with BBX Services Corp.

                         MANAGEMENT CONSULTING AGREEMENT

This Management Consulting Agreement is effective January 1, 2003 between
Bentley Communications Corp. (the "Company") and BBX Services Corp. (the
"Consultant").

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, the Company is a public company focused on acquisitions in the
financial services arena, specifically electronic barter transactions and
financial lead generation; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to engage Consultant to provide management
and administrative consulting services in furtherance of the Company's business
plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein
contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as
follows:

1.       ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANT.

         The Company hereby engages Consultant and Consultant agrees to provide
the following services (the "Services").

         A.       Oversee and administer the Company's business operations;

         B.       Advise the Company's management in furtherance of the
                  Company's business plan and objectives; and

         C.       Any other duties reasonably related to the above-listed
                  Services and the Company's operations and progress, as agreed
                  upon between the parties from time to time.

2.       TERM.

         This Agreement shall be effective from the date appearing at the top of
this Agreement until June 30, 2003 (the "Primary Term"). Following the Primary
Term, this Agreement shall renew in successive six-months terms unless
terminated earlier.

3.       COMPENSATION.

         The compensation to Consultant shall be $30,000.00 per month, payable
in cash or in the Company's 144 restricted stock, as determined by the Company.
Issuances of 144 restricted stock will be valued at the discretion of the board
of directors.

4.       TERMINATION

         The Company and Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon thirty
(30) days written notice with or without cause.

                                                "COMPANY"

                                                BENTLEY COMMUNICATIONS CORP.

                                                By: /s/Gordon F. Lee
                                                    ------------------------
                                                Its:President
                                                    ------------------------

                                                "CONSULTANT"

                                                BBX SERVICES CORP.

                                                BY: /s/Gordon F. Lee
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Gordon F. Lee
                                                    ------------------------
                                                Its:President
                                                    ------------------------
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2027 

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

Educcation, Student Aid 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 Educcation, Student Aid 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 EDUCCATION, STUDENT 

5 AID ADMINISTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:12 Apr 15, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2027.IH H2027

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2027 IH

1 able for Department of Education, Student Aid Adminis2 tration for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.02

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                           (Rule 13a-14(a) Certification)

I, Frank W. Backes, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 3Si Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as \of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls;
and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By: /s/ Frank W. Backes
Frank W. Backes, CTO/CFO
Date: February 11, 2005
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1921 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of Congress, 

John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development 

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 House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of Congress, John C. Stennis Center for Public 

Service Training and Development 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 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, JOHN C. STENNIS 

5 CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TRAINING 

6 AND DEVELOPMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Library of Congress, John C. Stennis Center for 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1921 IH

1 Public Service Training and Development for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $430,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YENY ARACELY DURON-ARITA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-70986

Agency No. A098-354-086

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Yeny Aracely Duron-Arita, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

FILED

JUL 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-70986

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that

deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and

regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review

for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,

1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Duron-Arita failed to

establish gang members targeted her in Honduras on account of a political opinion

or membership in a particular social group. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542

F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Soriano v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1162, 1166

(9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting “government informants” as a particular social group). 

We reject Duron-Arita’s claim that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of

removal as a member of a particular social group based on her perceived wealth or

family ties to United States citizens. See Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.

1996); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010). Lastly,

we reject Duron-Arita’s contention the agency applied the wrong legal standard to

its nexus determination. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)

(where the BIA conducts a de novo review, any error committed by the IJ is cured
3 10-70986

by the BIA’s application of the correct standard). Accordingly, Duron-Arita’s

asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Duron-Arita’s CAT claim

because she failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she would be tortured if

returned to Honduras. See Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747-48.

Finally, we reject Duron-Arita’s contentions that the agency violated due

process because the IJ was biased and because of alleged problems with

transcription and interpretation. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.

2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail in due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.