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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7690

CLAUDE V. JONES, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN LEROY CARTLEDGE,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (4:13-cv-03009-JMC)

Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude V. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kaycie Smith Timmons, 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Claude V. Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is 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 

Jones 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Publications about Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia

This brochure provides information about schizophrenia including symptoms, causes, treatment options, and how to find help for yourself or a loved one.

En español

Understanding Psychosis

This fact sheet presents information on psychosis including causes, signs and symptoms, treatment, and resources for help.

En español
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00185-CV

Stanwyn J. Carter

v.

Tammie J. Perry

§

§

§

§

§

From the 431st District Court

of Denton County (2013-70906-431)

July 9, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

Dissent by Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the trial court’s 

summary judgment order is reversed and remanded to the trial court for further 

proceedings.

It is further ordered that appellee Tammie J. Perry shall bear the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
9255 Towne Centre Drive suite 450, San Diego, CA	tel (858) 349 3617 fax (858) 597 7090







 





THIS NOTE AND THE
SECURITIES REPRESENTED HEREBY HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”).
THEY MAY NOT BE RESOLD, OFFERED FOR SALE, PLEDGED OR HYPOTHECATED IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AS TO THE
SECURITIES UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OR OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED. THIS
NOTE MUST BE SURRENDERED TO THE COMPANY OR ITS TRANSFER AGENT AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE SALE, PLEDGE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF
ANY INTEREST HEREIN.


 


MEDISTEM INC


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


	$__________	San Diego, California


_________,
2010


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
Medistem, Inc. (the “Company”) promises to pay to _______ (the “Lender”), or order, the principal sum of
up to _______________ ($__________), together with interest on the unpaid principal hereof from the date of such advance at the
rate of 5% per annum, compounded semiannually.


 


This loan may revert
in the following options:


 


1. The outstanding
principal shall be due and payable two years from the date stated on this Note. Payments of principal and interest shall be made
in lawful money of the United States of America.


 


2. The loan may be
extended for additional period of time if both the Lender and the Company agree.


 


3. The Lender may convert the principal and the interest due on this Note into __________ shares of Common
Stock of the Company at any time. As a condition precedent (which may be waived by the Company) to conversion of this Note as provided
for above, the Lender will be required to execute the definitive stock purchase agreement (which will include investment representations
and a 180-day lockup agreement) prepared in connection with such offering. The Company will notify the Lender in writing of the
terms of any such offering at least five business days before the closing of such offering.







 




    	1 of 2



    	 



    

 


 


 





Should any action
be instituted for the collection of this Note, the reasonable costs and attorneys' fees therein of the holder shall be paid by
the undersigned.


 


Agreement becomes effective upon receipt of $_______________ by Medistem. Wire instructions are as follows:





	 	Bank: ____________________
	 	Account Name: ____________________
	 	Account Number: ____________________
	 	Routing Number: ____________________


 


 


 


 


 


	 	_________________________________________
	 	Thomas E Ichim, Ph.D.
	 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	Medistem Inc
	 	9255 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 450
	 	San Diego
	 	CA 92122


 


 


 


 








    	2 of 2
# Alzheimer's Disease

## What is Alzheimer's disease?

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurological disorder that involves irreversible worsening changes in the ability to think and remember. It is the most common cause of dementia—the loss of the ability to reason, learn new skills, and plan and prioritize to the point which it interferes with a person's daily life and activities—in older adults.  

AD develops over many years, with damage to the brain that may start a decade or more before memory problems appear. Initially, people experience memory loss and confusion, which may be mistaken for the kinds of memory changes that are sometimes associated with normal aging. However, the symptoms of AD gradually lead to:
              - Behavior and personality changes
              - Decline in cognitive abilities such as decision-making and language skills
              - Problems recognizing family and friends.  

AD ultimately leads to a severe loss of mental function. These losses are believed to be related to certain proteins that abnormally clump together and damage healthy neurons and their connections, causing them to die. People with severe AD cannot communicate and are completely dependent on others for their care.

The risk of AD increases with age, but it can also occur in midlife, between a person's 30s and mid-60s. We don't yet completely understand the causes of late-onset AD, but they probably include genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors. 

There are no treatments that can stop the progression of AD, but certain drugs can temporarily slow worsening of some symptoms. 

file-medical

## How can I or my loved one help improve care for people with Alzheimer's disease?

Consider participating in a clinical trial so clinicians and scientists can learn more about AD and related disorders. Clinical research uses human volunteers to help researchers learn more about a disorder and perhaps find better ways to safely detect, treat, or prevent disease. 

All types of volunteers are needed—those who are healthy or may have an illness or disease—of all different ages, sexes, races, and ethnicities to ensure that study results apply to as many people as possible, and that treatments will be safe and effective for everyone who will use them. 

For information about participating in clinical research visit NIH Clinical Research Trials and You. Learn about clinical trials at Clinicaltrials.gov.
> Where can I find more information about Alzheimer's disease?
The following organization and resources help people living with AD and their families, friends, and caregivers:

Alzheimer's Disease Education and Referral (ADEAR) CenterPhone: 800-438-4380

Alzheimer's AssociationPhone: 800-272-3900 or 312-335-8700

Alzheimer's Drug Discovery FoundationPhone: 212-901-8000

Alzheimer's Foundation of AmericaPhone: 866-232-8484

BrightFocus FoundationPhone: 800-437-2423 

MedlinePlus

National Institute on Aging (NIA)

## Learn about related topics

              - Dementias
              - Frontotemporal Disorders 
              - Lewy Body Dementia

book-open
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE 

JORGE GONZALEZ, 

 RELATOR.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00320-CR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus 

against the Honorable Annabell Perez, Judge of the 41st District Court of El Paso County, Texas, 

and concludes Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
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 The Black & Decker Corporation (the
“Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Stephen F. Reeves, Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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
Corporation.







/s/ STEPHEN F.
REEVES


Stephen
F. Reeves


Chief
Financial Officer


February
19, 2010
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.1


 


Sale Agreement







Party A:Wang, Wenkai







Party B:Tonghua Linyuan Grape Planting Co., Ltd.


Address:Qingshi Town, Ji’an City


Legal person:Sun, Hui







Party A, Mr. Wang, Wenkai, who engaged in wine sale business in Tonghua City for many years, determines to acquire Party B because of its equipment and the free plant. After full discussion and consultation by both parties, Party B agreed to implement sale of whole assets and debts of Tonghua Linyuan to party A for zero. The followings are mutually agreed:







1. Both parties agreed that Party A obtains the ownership of the machinery and equipment of Party B and Party A has the use rights of the plant of Party B for free. Meanwhile, Party B shall bear the debt of $ 2 million from the Party A.


 


2. Anything not covered in this agreement will be discussed separately by both parties in an additional agreement which has the same legal force and effect with this agreement.


 


3. This agreement is effective upon signature and stamp of both parties


 



	Party A:/s/ Wang, Wenkai	Party B:/s/ Tonghua Linyuan
	 	 
	Date: June 30, 2013	 
Date: June 30, 2013
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Padilla, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 921]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 10, 1997 *(People v Padilla,*237 AD2d 383 [1997]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered January 20, 1994.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Ritter, J.E, Santucci, Goldstein and Dillon, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Francini C., a Child Alleged to be Abused. Yasmin P., Appellant; New York City Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 124]

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Clark *V.*Richardson, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2012, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent mother abused the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s determination that respondent abused her daughter (Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]). The child’s out-of-court statements that her mother hit and choked her with a belt were corroborated by the medical records and the testimony of an expert in pediatric medicine, who, after evaluating the child and reviewing her medical records, concluded that she had been abused *(see Matter of Alexis Marie P.,*45 AD3d 458 [1st Dept 2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 705 [2008]). The child’s statements were further corroborated by the caseworker’s testimony as to marks on the child *(see Matter of Maria Raquel L.,*36 AD3d 425 [1st Dept 2007]).

There is no basis to disturb the court’s determination to discredit respondent’s explanation of her daughter’s injuries. Respondent’s account was not corroborated by the evidence and was inconsistent with the findings set forth in the child’s medical records *(see Matter of Jared S. [Monet*S.], 78 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*16 NY3d 705 [2011]).

We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
## 2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-19-2003 

# V ideo P i p eline I nc v

. B ue n a V i s t a H ome
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2497

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" V ide o P ipe l ine I nc v

. B ue n a V i s t a H ome " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 227. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/227

### PRECEDENTIAL Filed September 19, 2003 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

02-2497
VIDEO PIPELINE, INC.

v. BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC. BUENA VISTA HOME ENTERTAINMENT, INC.;

MIRAMAX FILM CORP.,

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
v. VIDEO PIPELINE, INC.,

Counterclaim-Defendant Video Pipeline, Inc.,

Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-05236) District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle

Argued January 21, 2003 Before: BECKER,* NYGAARD, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed August 26, 2003)

* Judge Becker concluded his term as Chief Judge on May 4, 2003.

### ORDER AMENDING OPINION The opinion in the above case is hereby amended as follows: 1. On page 2, the list of counsel for Appellees shall read as follows: Gary A. Rosen, Esquire (Argued) Law Offices of Gary A. Rosen, P.C. 1831 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Patrick Madamba, Jr., Esquire Akins, Grump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP 2005 Market Street One Commerce Square, Suite 2200 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorneys for Appellee 2. On page 5, footnote 3, the third paragraph of the footnote is deleted in its entirety. /s/ Thomas L. Ambro Circuit Judge Dated: September 19, 2003 A True Copy:

Teste: Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

### 2
#### David Yedid et al., Appellants, v Gymnastic Center et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 299]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Covello, J.), dated May 2, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The infant plaintiff alleged that while he was performing a front flip on a trampoline in his gymnastics class, he was unable to complete his rotation and fell. The infant plaintiff had completed this maneuver unassisted on a number of occasions without incident. Indeed, right before the accident, he successfully completed this maneuver without any assistance.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendants submitted evidence sufficient to establish that the infant plaintiff assumed the apparent risk of falling when he voluntarily engaged in the subject maneuver (see *Koubek v Denis,*21 AD3d 453 [2005]; *Liccione v Gearing,*252 AD2d 956 [1998]; *cf. Hopkins v City of New York,*248 AD2d 441 [1998]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see *Trummer v Niewisch,*17 AD3d 349 [2005]; *Honohan v Turrone,*297 AD2d 705 [2002]). Frudenti, P.J., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 185 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 185

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Rules in the One 
                      Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2019

    Mr. McGovern (for himself and Mr. Cole) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Rules in the One 
                      Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Rules (hereafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the expenses of 
all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 
of the House of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 
not more than $6,654,380 for the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $3,327,190 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2019, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2020; and
            (2) not more than $3,327,190 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2020, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2021.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andprincipal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.Date:November 8, 2007
1 Mark Filip has been appointed to serv e as Acting Attorney General, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1433

___________ Tomas Xorxe Tarce, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review v. * of an Order of the * Board of Immigration Appeals. Mark Filip, 1 Acting Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: January 30, 2009 Filed: February 4, 2009

___________ Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Guatemalan citizen Tomas Tarce petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).-2- After careful review of the record, we conclude the decision of the IJ and the BIA--that Tarce failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground--is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SeeEta-Ndu v. Gonzales , 411 F.3d 977, 982-83 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); see also Quomsieh v. Gonzales , 479 F.3d 602, 605 (8th Cir. 2007) (when BIA adopts IJ’s decision and adds its own reasoning, this court reviews both decisions together). Becau se Tarce alleged the same factual basis for all his claims, the conclusions that support the denial of his asylum claim also support the denial of his withholdi ng-of-removal and CAT claims. SeeSamedov v. Gonzales , 422 F.3d 704, 708-09 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________