alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Todd RAMSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LVN FNU SPOORES; Dr. Adel Nafrawi; Senior Warden FNU Duke, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-10277.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 2006.

Michael Todd Ramsey, Kemp, TX, pro se.

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Ramsey, a Texas prisoner, appeals the magistrate judge’s *sua sponte**330order dismissing his *pro se*42 U.S.C. § 1988 civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(I), following a hearing pursuant to *Spears v. McCotter,*766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir.1985). Ramsey alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when defendant nurse Spoores caused an injury to his ear while cleaning it on April 3, 2003, and the other defendants failed to treat him. Following the *Spears*hearing, at which Ramsey was questioned about his allegations and about his prison medical records, the magistrate judge determined that Ramsey was alleging only negligence.

Ramsey argues that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in dismissing his complaint as frivolous, in failing to grant him an opportunity to amend his complaint, and by using his medical records to counter his allegations. Although Ramsey has suggested that Spoores intentionally damaged his ear by using the “wrong” syringe attachment, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that these allegations suggested only a non-cognizable claim of negligent treatment. *See Taylor v. Johnson,*257 F.3d 470, 472 (5th Cir.2001); *Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 839-40, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); *Varnado v. Lynaugh,*920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991).

The magistrate judge did not err in using Ramsey’s medical records to elicit his admissions that a nurse Hodges had given him medications and that Ramsey had been repeatedly treated by defendant Dr. Nafrawi. *See Banuelos v. McFarland,*41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1995); *Wilson v. Barrientos,*926 F.2d 480, 481 & n. 3 (5th Cir.1991). Finally, that Ramsey may have written two letters about his medical treatment to defendant Warden Duke was insufficient to establish the causal connection necessary to show that Duke was personally liable. *See Evett v. DETNTFF,*330 F.3d 681, 689 (5th Cir.2003).

For the reasons discussed above, we affirm. The affirmance of the dismissal of Ramsey’s complaint as frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of the three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir.1996). Ramsey is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed *informa pauperis*in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *330published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARY HUMBERTO CLAVIJO CRUZ;

JHON ERIK CLAVIJO GONZALEZ,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71183

Agency Nos. A202

- 176

- 681

A202

- 176

- 680

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 30, 2020 * *

Pasadena, California

Before: BEA and BADE, Circuit Judges, and McCALLA, ** * District Judge.

Ary Humberto Clavijo Cruz and his son, Jhon Erik Clavijo Gonzalez

( collectively “ Petitioners ” ) , native s and citizen s of Colombia, petition for review of

* 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).

*** The Honorable Jon P. McCalla, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 1 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ ( “ BIA ” ) order dismissing their appeal from an

immi gration judge’s denial of th e i r applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ( “ CAT ” )

. We

review the agency’s decisions for substantial evidence. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder

,

755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252, we deny the petition for review.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency ’ s denial of P etitioners’ claims for

asylum and withholding of removal because they f ailed to demonstrate that the

Colombian g overnment was unable or unwilling to protect them fro m Los

Rastrojos , a criminal gang without any political leaning

. See Madrigal v. Holder

,

716 F.3d 499, 507

– 08 (9th Cir. 2013) ; see also Reyes

- Reyes v Ashcroft , 384 F.3d

7 82, 788 (9th Cir. 2004)

. Petitioners ’ claim s that the BIA failed to consider the

Colombian government ’s ability to protect them , and that the BIA failed to

consider evidence bearing on that issue, are not supported by the record.

2

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because P etitioner s failed to show it is more likely than not that t he y would be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if ret urned to

Colombia

. See Garcia

-

Milian , 755 F.3d at 1034 (P olice ineffectiveness is not

enough to establish an entitlement to relief, “ absent evidence of corruption or other

inability or unwillingness to oppose criminal organizations.” ).3

3. Substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Petitioners

can safely and reasonably relocate within Colombia. See Knezevic v. Ashcroft , 367

F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2004)

.

Petitioners’ motion for stay of removal is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001370 30-NOV-2015 09:42 AM
Exhibit 99(f)

CERTIFICATE REGARDING 
  PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-Q
  FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Electric Utilities
  Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered
  Report"), I, the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  of 2002, hereby certify that:

- The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
- The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this certificate as of this 12th day of
  November, 2002.

| | /s/ James E. Abel                 
| | ----------------------------------
| | James E. Abel                     
| | Treasurer                         
| | PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
Exhibit 10.3 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT

by and between

DOUGLAS N. RAUCY

and

1347 PROPERTY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.


Dated as of June 1, 2015


THIRD AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT
dated as of June 1, 2015 (this “Amendment”), between Douglas N. Raucy (“Raucy”) and 1347
Property Insurance Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“PIH”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, Raucy and PIH are
parties to the Option Agreement dated as of February 28, 2014, as amended (the “Agreement”);


WHEREAS,
pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Agreement, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects, effective
as of the date first written above, as set forth herein;


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Amendment, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereby agree as follows:


AMENDMENT
TO THE AGREEMENT


1.                 
Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Agreement, Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to
read as follows:


Section 2.1Exercise.
Raucy may exercise this Option at any time for a period commencing on the date of pricing of the IPO and ending at the close of
business on December 15, 2015 (the “Expiration Date”), so long as Raucy is employed by PIH on the date of exercise,
upon payment of the aggregate Exercise Price with respect to which the Option is being exercised and compliance with terms of this
Agreement. Raucy shall exercise the Option by giving irrevocable written notice to PIH of Raucy’s intent to exercise the
Option (the date of such notice, the “Exercise Date”). If the Option is not exercised by Raucy in the manner
provided herein on or before the Expiration Date, then




    	 



    	 



    

this Agreement shall, without further action
of any party, automatically terminate and thereafter be null and void and of no further force or effect, and neither party shall
have any further rights or obligations with respect to the Option or the Matched Shares. The Option may be exercised in part (but
only on one occasion) and in such case the aggregate Exercise Price to be paid by Raucy shall equal the number of shares as to
which the Option is being exercised multiplied by the Exercise Price. The Option may not be exercised for fractional shares.


2.                 
The other terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement not otherwise amended pursuant
to this Amendment shall continue in full force and effect.


3.                 
This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when
executed and delivered, shall be an original, but all of which shall collectively constitute one and the same instrument.


[Signature Page Follows]




    	2



    	 



    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties
hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective authorized officers as of the day and year first above
written.





	DOUGLAS N. RAUCY	 	1347 PROPERTY INSURANCE HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 	 
	/s/ Douglas N. Raucy	 	By:	/s/ John S. Hill
	 	 	Name: John S. Hill
	 	 	Title:  Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1990 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1990

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
             Institute on Drug Abuse 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 Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
             Institute on Drug Abuse 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 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
              NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute on 
Drug Abuse for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,419,844,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas Roy HENDERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 06-6678.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 19, 2006.

*522Thomas Roy Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Deana A. Malek, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Roy Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cock-rell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2205 

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

of Agriculture, Capital Improvement and Maintenance 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 Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee 

on Natural Resources, 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 provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Capital Improvement and 

Maintenance 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 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CAPITAL 

5 IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE FOR FIS6 CAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:41 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2205.IH H2205

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2205 IH

1 able for US Department of Agriculture, Capital Improve2 ment and Maintenance for fiscal year 2024 may not ex3 ceed $159,049,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. KENNETH JAMES HANNA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:95-cr-00007-CMC-1)

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth James Hanna, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth James Hanna appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006), the court’s subsequent order granting his motion for reconsideration, granting his § 3582(c) motion, and reducing his sentence, and the court’s order denying his

second motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hanna , No. 4:95-cr-00007-CMC-1 (D.S.C. June 23, 2008; July 17, 2008; Sept. 9, 2008). See United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009). We deny Hanna’s motion to remand and his motion for stay. 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
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2085 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The Judiciary, Court 

of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judiciary Activities, Fees of 

Jurors and Commissions 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 the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for The 

Judiciary, Court of Appeals, District Courts, and Other 

Judiciary Activities, Fees of Jurors and Commissions 

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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2085 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 THE JUDICIARY, COURT OF APPEALS, DIS3 TRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIARY AC4 TIVITIES, FEES OF JURORS AND COMMIS5 SIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for The Judiciary, Court of Appeals, District Courts, 

9 and Other Judiciary Activities, Fees of Jurors and Com10 missions for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $49,750,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**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**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Seaena, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Doug Lee, Principal 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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/Doug Lee |
|-------------|

Doug Lee

Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         152,564
<SECURITIES>                                   162,013
<RECEIVABLES>                                      278
<ALLOWANCES>                                        19
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               320,290
<PP&E>                                          50,034
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,457)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 475,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,961
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                     452,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   475,054
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,870
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (57,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,488)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (63,940)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.15)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SEACOR MARINE, LLC, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0596-CG-C

)

C&G BOAT WORKS, INC., et al, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This cause is before the court on the Notice of Automatic Stay filed by C&G 

Boat Works, Inc. (Doc. 120) and the Notice of Automatic Stay filed by Graham Gulf, 

Inc. (Doc. 122).

Pursuant to 11U.S.C. § 362, the filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a 

stay of an action. Therefore, this action is hereby STAYED as to C&G Boat Works, 

Inc. and Graham Gulf, Inc.

The parties are ORDERED to notify the court within thirty (30) days of the 

resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings, or of a lift of the stay.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00596-CG-C Document 123 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 1
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2225 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Agencies, 

Commission on Fine Arts, 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 Related Agencies, Commission on Fine Arts, Salaries and 

Expenses 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 RELATED AGENCIES, COMMISSION ON FINE 

5 ARTS, SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Related Agencies, Commission on Fine Arts, SalaVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:48 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2225.IH H2225

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2225 IH

1 ries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $2,771,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB