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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8017

ANDREW CHIEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LECLAIRRYAN; WILLIAM K. GROGAN & ASSOCIATES; WILLIAM K. 

GROGAN,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-00993-LO-IDD)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Chien, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Michael Rainsbury, 

LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Chien appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the 

claims against LeClair Ryan and William K. Grogan & Associates 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Chien v. 

Chesterfield Cty., No. 1:13-cv-00993-LO-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 

6, entered Nov. 7, 2013). We affirm the district court’s 

dismissal of the claims against William Grogan in his capacity 

as a Commissioner in Chancery on alternative grounds. See MM ex 

rel. DM v. School Dist. of Greenville Cnty., 303 F.3d 523, 536 

(4th Cir. 2002). While Grogan was a state actor, he is entitled 

to judicial immunity for actions taken within the scope of his 

official duties. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 

(1978) (defining factors used to determine whether an action is 

a judicial act). We deny Chien’s motion to expedite this 

decision. We 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
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2268 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2268

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
 of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation 
                    Operations 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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
 of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation 
                    Operations 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 US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, 
              CONSERVATION OPERATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation 
Operations for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $819,492,000.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bull Run Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarterly period ended November 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive 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 to the best of his individual knowledge and belief:  (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:
    
    January 11, 2005Signed:
    
    /s/ ROBERT S. PRATHER, JR.Robert S. Prather, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
664 A.2d 495

#### IN THE MATTER OF V. JOSEPH JAMES, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 27, 1995.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court on July 11, 1995, recommending that by way of reciprocal discipline V. JOSEPH JAMES of ST. MARY’S, PENNSYLVANIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, and who was thereafter temporarily suspended from practice on December 21, 1993, and who remains suspended at this time, be disbarred, respondent having been disbarred in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on August 17, 1993, for ethical violations, including the knowing misappropriation of client funds;

And respondent having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause in this matter;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and V. JOSEPH JAMES, is hereby disbarred, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that V. JOSEPH JAMES be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by V. JOSEPH JAMES, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be *467transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that Y. JOSEPH JAMES comply with *Rule*1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that V. JOSEPH JAMES reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs.
1Rule 10 Court of Appeals - (a) Affirmance Without Opinion. The Court, with the

concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by

order without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and

one or more of the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by necessary implication by the

trial court.

. . . .

(3) no reversible error of law appears.

1

FILED

Jan. 29, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE, WESTERN SECTION

AT JACKSON

_______________________________________________________

)

MONICA R. WILLIAMS, ) Shelby County Circuit Court

) No. 147704 R.D. 

 Plaintiff/Appellee. )

)

VS. ) C. A. NO. 02A01-9604-CV-00088

)

 CLAUDE WILLIAMS, )

)

 Defendant/Appellant. )

)

______________________________________________________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Claude D. Williams (Husband) appeals from the trial court’s award of rehabilitative

alimony to be paid to Monica R. Williams (Wife) at $500 per month for eighteen months.

This was a marriage of approximately five years duration. Wife was a junior in

college attending school full-time and working two part-time jobs. She testified that her net income

was $880 and her expenses $1,507 per month. Husband has an engineering degree and earns

approximately $38,000 annually. No children were born to the marriage. Wife was granted the

divorce on the grounds of inappropriate marital conduct.

Upon reviewing this record, we conclude that the trial court was correct in

determining that this was a proper case for rehabilitative alimony. The evidence supports need on

the part of Wife and the ability to pay on the part of Husband.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Court of Appeals Rule 10(a)(1)(3).1
2

Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellant, for which execution may issue if necessary.

________________________________

FARMER, J.

______________________________

HIGHERS, J. (Concurs)

______________________________

LILLARD, J. (Concurs)
Exhibit 32.1





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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, I, Kim Fuerst, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

(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:  June 29, 2005

/s/ Kim Fuerst



Kim Fuerst



Chief Executive Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

QUINCY MAURICE CURRY, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D23-730

December 27, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Stephen Mathew 

Whyte, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, BLACK, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

CAI International, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statement (No. 333-143000) on Form S-8 of CAI International, Inc. of our report dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CAI International, Inc. and subsidiaries (Successor) as ofDecember 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income, cumulative redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2007 and the three months endedDecember 31, 2006 (Successor Periods), and with respect to the consolidated statements of income, cumulative redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity, and cash flows of CAI International, Inc. and subsidiaries(Predecessor) for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 and the year ended December 31, 2005 (Predecessor Periods), and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2007, annual report on Form10-K of CAI International, Inc. 

As discussed in Note 3 to the consolidated financial statements, effective October 1, 2006, CAI International, Inc.repurchased 50% of its outstanding common stock. The repurchase of stock has been accounted for as a step acquisition and the change in basis has been pushed down to CAI International, Inc.’s consolidated financial statements. As a result ofthe repurchase of shares, the consolidated financial information for periods after the repurchase is presented on a different basis than that for the periods before the acquisition and, therefore, is not comparable. 

As discussed in Note 2(n) to the consolidated financial statements, effective January 1, 2007 the Successor adopted FASB Staff Position AUG AIR-1, *Accounting forPlanned Major Maintenance* (FSP). The FSP was retrospectively applied adjusting all previously reported financial statements presented. 

/s/ KPMG LLP

San Francisco, California 

March 14, 2008
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>John T. Jones, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered July 9, 2014, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of unauthorized sale or reproduction of a MetroCard and unlawful solicitation in the subway, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered July 9, 2014, affirmed. </p><p>The accusatory instrument charging defendant with unauthorized sale or reproduction of a MetroCard (<i>see</i> 21 NYCRR ยง 1050.4[c]) was not jurisdictionally defective. Nonhearsay allegations established every element of the charged offense. The sworn police allegations that, as a "member of the New York Police Department, I am a custodian of the subway system" and that "defendant did not have permission or authority to sell a MetroCard in the subway system," were "sufficiently evidentiary in character" (<i>People v Allen</i>, 92 NY2d 378, 385 [1998]) to establish the lack-of-permission element of the offense (<a href="../2015/2015_51542.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Jones</i>, 49 Misc 3d 137</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51542[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015], <i>lv denied</i> 26 NY3d 1110 [2016]). </p><p>Defendant did not preserve by specific objections his current claims regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for unauthorized sale or reproduction of a MetroCard (<i>see People v Gray</i>, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the evidence that defendant approached a plainclothes police officer and offered to sell him subway system access for $2.00, an offer that included defendant putting the officer on the subway by swiping him with a single-ride Metrocard and culminated with defendant swiping a MetroCard at the turnstile to provide access to the subway, was sufficient to support a finding that defendant lacked the authority or permission to sell MetroCard "swipes" (21 NYCRR 1050.4[c]). One who swipes another person into the subway system for money but does not enter himself, clearly violates the purpose and plain language of 21 NYCRR 1050.4[c] (<i>see People v Smith</i>, 100 NY2d 571, 573 [2003]; Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Penal Law 165.16 <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>[certain "schemes" are employed "to profit personally from the misuse of farecards," including "selling swipes"]).</p><br>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.<br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: June 21, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
|   | · | 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. |

| Date:  May                4, 2006 | /s/ William                F.                Hecht                                    |
|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                        | William                F. HechtChairman                and Chief Executive OfficerPPL                Corporation                                                                                                                                                          |
Exhibit 10.1


 


The Marcus Corporation


Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan


Effective July 23, 2014


 


	1.	Annual cash retainer:	$15,000
	 	 	 
	2.	Yearly annual meeting stock grant retainer (common shares)	753 Shares
	 	 	 
	3.	Annual FYE restricted stock grant (common shares):	1,250 Shares
	 	Vesting to occur upon the earlier of (i) 100% upon normal retirement from the Board or (ii) 50% upon the third anniversary of the grant date while still serving on the Board and the remaining 50% upon the fifth anniversary of the grant date while still serving on the Board	 
	 	 	 
	4.	Board meeting attendance cash fee:	
        $3,500 

	 	 	 
	5.	Non-qualified stock option grant (common shares):	Initial: 1,000 Shares
	 	Fair market value exercise price (closing sale price)	Annual FYE: 1,000 Shares
	 	Fully vested and immediately exercisable at grant date	 
	 	 	 
	6.	Committee chairperson meeting attendance cash fee:	Audit: $2,000
	 	 	Other: $1,500
	 	 	 
	7.	Committee member meeting attendance cash fee:	Audit: $1,500
	 	 	Other: $1,250
	 	 	 
	8.	Reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses:	Yes
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in
his capacity as an officer of MicroIslet, Inc. (the "Company"), that, to his
knowledge, Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB
for the period ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in
such report.



Dated: September 27, 2005

            /s/ John F. Steel IV
            ------------------------------------------------------
            John F. Steel IV, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
            (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: September 27, 2005

            /w/ William G. Kachioff
            ------------------------------------------------------
            William G. Kachioff, Vice President, Finance
            and Chief Financial Officer
            (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Southern White Lead Co. *v.*Coit *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.*

February 20, 1888.)

Trade-Marks—What will be Protected.

A manufacturer of white lead in Chicago will be enjoined from the use of the words “White Lead, St. Louis,” except as to preparations of white lead manufactured there, such use tending to deceive and defraud the public and complainant, a manufacturer of lead in St. Louis.

In Equity.

The Southern White Lead Company filed a bill to enjoin W. A. Coit and others from using the words “ St. Louis,” with the words “warranted strictly pure white lead in pure linseed oil,” to designate lead which was not pure, made in Chicago.

*Banning &*Banning, for complainant.

*Fairchild & Blackman,*for defendants.

Blodgett, J.,

*(orally.)*This case stands upon precisely the same facts as the case of same, complainant against Cary, decided by Judge Gresham about a year ago, (25 Fed. Rep. 125;) and, in principle, is on all fours with the case of *Association*v. *Piza,*24 Fed. Rep. 149. The complainant may therefore prepare a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, enjoining the defendants from the use of the words, Southern or “South Western White Lead, St. Louis,” or “Southern White Lead Co., St. Louis,” or “St. Louis,” except as to preparations of white lead manufactured, put up, or sold at St. Louis. The principle involved is that the defendant’s white lead purports to be manufactured in St. Louis, when in fact it is manufactured in Chicago, and thereby tends to deceive and defraud the public and the complainant, who is a manufacturer of white lead in St. Louis, inasmuch as the defendant’s lead is not pure, and is not made in St. Louis.
#### Dean G. Skelos et al., as Duly Elected Members of the New York State Senate, Respondents, v David Paterson, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Submitted September 8, 2009;

decided September 15, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 339.

Motion by Ricardo Montano et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed forthwith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from National
Property Investors 4 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000318508
<NAME> NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 4
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,175
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          27,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         19,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (10,137)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,834
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,113
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,312
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,117
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       801
<EPS-BASIC>                                      13.22<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>