alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 1484** 

LEANORA NELSON ; SELENA NELSON CECCHINI, Natural Daughter and Heir at Law of Rosalind Nelson deceased; JEAN NELSON LUMSBY ,
Plaintiff s
- Appellant s ,

v.

LEVY CENTER LLC ,
Defendant

- Appellee ,

v.

HORACE JONES; THE LAW OFFICES OF HORACE JONES; THE WILCY R. NELSON FAMILY, LLC , Third Party Defendants

.

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

. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 9:11

- cv
- 01184

- SB )

Submitted : October 31, 2016 Decided: December 7, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Leanora Nelson , Sele na Nelson Cecchini , Jean Nelson Lumsby , Appellant s Pro Se. Demetri K. Koutrakos , Louis H. Lang ,2 CALLISON, TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC , Columbia , South Carolina, for Appellee

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Leanora Nelson , Selena Nelson Cecchini , and Jean Nelson
Lumsby (collectively, “the Nelsons”) appeal from the district
court’s order adopting the recommendations of the magistrate
judge and granting summary judgment in their civil action to
Defendant Levy Center LLC. The district court determined that

dismissal of certain of the Nelsons’ claims was warranted under

the Rooker

- Feldman 1 doctrine and that the entire action was
barred under the applicable statute of limitations. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district

court’s determination that the Nelsons’ action was barred by the
applicable statute of limitations. We therefore affirm the
district court’s judgment on this basis. 2 Nelson v. Levy Ctr.

LLC , No. 9:11

- cv
- 01184

- SB (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2016)

.

1 D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923 ).

2 After the district court issued its judgment, this court issued an opinion clarifying the scope of the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine. Thana v. Bd. of License Comm’rs for Charles Cty., Md. , 827 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2016). Because we affirm here on an alternate ba sis, we find it unnecessary to consider whether the district court’s Rooker

- Feldman analysis comports with Thana

. We also reject as without merit the Ne lsons’ appellate arguments suggestive of potential bias by the district court and suggesting that the c ourt erred by considering matters not cited by Levy Center LLC in its summary judgment motion.4 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-64,536] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on November 25, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Industrial Paint and Strip, Inc., Woodsfield, Ohio. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of January 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-1496 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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

I, Charles C. Ward, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Constellation Energy Partners LLC, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i) The
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Constellation Energy Partners LLC.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Charles C. Ward                  
|Charles C. Ward                      
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date: May 9, 2008
S05Y1405.

#### IN THE MATTER OF SWAIN ALVIN LEWIS.

(616 SE2d 451)

Decided June 30, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Page A. Pate,*for Lewis.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on Respondent Swain Alvin Lewis’ Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License filed prior to the issuance of a Formal Complaint pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (b). In his petition, Lewis admits that he pled guilty in January 2005 to violating 18 USC § 4 (misprision of a felony), that the court’s acceptance of the plea constitutes a felony conviction, and that due to the conviction, he violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of Bar Rule 4-102 (d) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. The maximum penalty for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) is disbarment and Lewis acknowledges that pursuant to Bar Rule 4-110 (f), his voluntary surrender of license is tantamount to disbarment. The State Bar recommends that this Court accept Lewis’ petition.

We have reviewed the record in this matter and conclude that by his conviction of a felony, Lewis violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, Lewis’ Petition for Voluntary Surrender of License hereby is accepted. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Petition for voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### CHANDLER BLDG. CORPORATION v. SHANNON et al.

No. 55474.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

March 27, 1939.

*106Julius I. Peyser, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Coulter Wells, of Washington, D. G, for defendant Shannon.

Hugh O’Bear, of Washington, D. G, for intervener noteholders committee.

LUHRING, Associate Justice.

The motion of the plaintiff, Chandler Building Corporation, to dismiss bill of complaint is overruled.

The bill of complaint was filed in this court March 22d, 1933. Answers were filed and such proceeding's were had as that receivers were appointed to take charge of and manage the property pendente lite. These receivers have had charge of this property ever since their appointment and are now in charge of the same.

The motion to dismiss was made at the same time a petition for intervention was presented to the court.

The plaintiff is not entitled to dismiss as a matter of right. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 41 (a), paragraph (2), 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c, controls, and under the circumstances here disclosed the court is overruling the motion to dismiss and at the same time allowing the filing of the petition in intervention.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         231,882
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               231,882
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 231,882
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,750
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,814
<OTHER-SE>                                     222,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   231,882
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  20,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,990)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,474)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,474)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,474)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
ELECTRONIC RECORD

V50 -/S

357-/5

COA# 01-13-00640-CR OFFENSE: 22.02 (Aggravated Assault)

Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Galveston

COADISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 405th District Court

DATE: 02/26/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 12CR2237

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Mb vr

ISMS

3rwr

Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State of

STYLE: Texas .

APPBll^/JT^ .Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: Mkjjl/r

JUDGE: fj*.LOls*-^—

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
|   | • | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   | • | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      combined predecessors of thePartnership. |
|--------|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 10 2009                 | /s/MICHAEL      E. MERCER                          |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|        | Michael      E. Mercer                             |
|                                 | Chief      Financial Officer of EV Management LLC, |
|                                 | general      partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,        |
|                                 | general      partner of EV Energy Partners,L.P.    |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**JOHN JAMES ROBBINS,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**THE HON. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS**

**OF BRADFORD COUNTY: AND**

**DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF BRADFORD COUNTY,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 139 MM 2014** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 3 rd**  **day of November, 2014, the Application for Leave to File** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is** DENIED

**.**
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - December 2007 

Benefit payments December 2007 December 2006 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

22,659,000 

98,668,000 

156,710,000 

$818,116,000 

540,053,000 

22,352,000 

93,886,000 

155,826,000 

$787,674,000 

515,608,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month December 2007 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 574,100 ......... 2,000 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 277,400 $1,970 700 $2,587 ......... .........

 Age 193,000 1,936 2 300 2 3,071 $1,079 3 $1,503

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,100 1,753 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 50,400 2,249 300 2,579 1,004 1,046 

Spouses and divorced spouses 137,500 726 700 935 516 385 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 132,900 1,187 500 1,548 1,020 847 

Widowed mothers and fathers 900 1,489 4/ 1,674 782 762 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 14,300 796 100 766 5/ 5/ 

Children 11,000 875 4/ 1,122 704 716 

Other survivors 100 703 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

December 

2007 

$5,040,000 

December 

2006 

$5,090,000 

Number 

121,300 

Average 

$42 400 

Number 

$41 

Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); some 100

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

December 2007 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 3,500 $523 $291 

Sickness 5,600 

December 2007 

523 292 

Benefit payments 

December 2006 

Unemployment

Total 

3,526,000 

$7,425,000 $7,260,000 

3,458,000 

Sickness 3,899,000 3,802,000

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

Bureau of the Actuary

Recycled

 Paper
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11** 
**- 6934** 

ANTHONY LEON HOOVER ,
Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
and

CHARLES MARSHALL ,
Plaintiff ,

v.

BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE; ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.; ROBERT C. LEWIS; FAYE E. DANIELS ; ROY COOPER ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- ct

- 03068

- F )

Submitted : November 18, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Anthony Leon Hoover, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIA M:
Anthony Leon Hoover appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint as frivolous

.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Hoov er v. Perdue , No. 5:11

- ct

- 03068

- F (E.D.N.C. July 11,

2011) . 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the directi on of the Court.

F ebruary 22 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk February 22 , 2019

148981(40)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 148981

v COA: 319642

Muskegon CC: 12

- 062665

- FH

PAUL J. BETTS, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of the Criminal Defense Attorneys of

Michigan to extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus

brief submitted on February 15 , 2019 , is accepted for filing

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT VON PAILLETT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 189 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Law Library within 11 days of the date of this order and provide proof of 

such payment within 15 days. 

We have repeatedly stated that we expect all appeals to be 

"pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, 

professionalism, and competence." Cuzdey v. State, 103 Nev. 575, 578, 747 

P.2d 233, 235 (1987); accord Polk v. State, 126 Nev. 180, 184, 233 P.3d 

357, 359 (2010); Barry v. Lindner, 119 Nev. 661, 671, 81 P.3d 537, 543 

(2003); State, Nev. Emp't Sec. Dep't v. Weber, 100 Nev. 121, 123, 676 P.2d 

1318, 1319 (1984). It is incumbent upon Mr Phillips, as part of his 

professional obligations of competence and diligence to his clients, to know 

and comply with all applicable court rules. See RPC 1.1; RPC 1.3. These 

rules have been implemented to promote cost-effective, timely access to 

the courts; it is "imperative" that he follow these rules and timely comply 

with our directives. Weddell v. Stewart, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58, 261 

P.3d 1080, 1084 (2011). Mr. Phillips is "not at liberty to disobey notices, 

orders, or any other directives issued by this court." Id. at 261 P.3d at 

1085. 

Mr. Phillips's failure to comply with our rules and orders has 

forced this court to divert our limited resources to ensure his compliance 

and needlessly delayed the processing of this appeal. Therefore, we 

remove Mr. Phillips as counsel in this appeal. See NRAP 31(d). Because 

it appears that Mr. Phillips's conduct in this appeal may constitute 

violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and 8.4 

(misconduct), we refer Mr. Phillips to the State Bar of Nevada for 

investigation pursuant to SCR 104-105. Bar counsel shall, within 90 days 

of the date of this order, inform this court of the status or results of the 

investigation and any disciplinary proceedings in this matter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(C) 1947A ,Egfar. 
, J. 

J. 

This appeal is dismissed. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Saitta 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge 

Nathaniel J. Reed, Settlement Judge 

David Lee Phillips & Associates 

Law Office of Daniel Marks 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

David A. Clark, Bar Counsel 

Supreme Court Law Librarian 

Loyde Robinson 

Alan Clark 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 947A co
Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 161 Filed 12/29/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 970
Case 2:10-cr-00851-CCC Document 161 Filed 12/29/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 971
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 15-0307

DOROTHY EDWARDS

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE

SERVICES

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

June 5, 2015

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 20th day of July, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 29, 2013

t0422

Order 

April 29, 2013

146529

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146529

COA: 306030

Wayne CC: 11-003376-FC

SANDY MELVIN QUICK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# table54_q6_size
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6680

ADRIAN NATHANIEL BACON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RANDALL C. MATHENA; MAJOR GALLIHAR; FLETCHER, Q.M.H.P.; JONES, 

Q.M.H.P.; HUFF, Q.M.H.P.; WRIGHT, Q.M.H.P.; ADAMS, Q.M.H.P.; 

LT. STANLEY; CAPT. BLEVINS; SGT. BOYD; SGT. MILLER; C/O 

HOWARD; C/O STURGILL; C/O GILBERT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. 

(7:15-cv-00089-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Nathaniel Bacon, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Nathaniel Bacon appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012), his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) suit. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues 

raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

Bacon’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s 

conclusion that his suit must be dismissed as malicious, Bacon has 

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we

deny Bacon’s motion to appoint counsel and dismiss the district 

court’s judgment. 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.

DISMISSED