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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6372

ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL RICHARD PAUZE,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

(1:14-cv-00248-LO-TRJ)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Otis Matthews, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Otis Matthews appeals the district court’s order 

granting his motion to correct misfiling and dismissing his 

complaint alleging prosecutorial misconduct. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Matthews v. Pauze, No. 

1:14-cv-00248-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va. Feb. 12, 2015). 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23

- 0450 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOHN RAYMOND WELZEL, Defendant and Appellant

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 20 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 15 2024

08/15/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0450
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH DISTRICT, AT AMARILLO

No. 07-12-00544-CV

Tracey H. Coomer

v.

Tamala K. Alvarez

(No. 600 IN COUNTY COURT OF HARTLEY COUNTY)

Type of Fee Charges Paid By

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Motion fee

Indigent

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

Filing

$10.00

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$25.00

$50.00

$100.00

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

Tracey Coomer















Balance of costs owing to the Seventh Court of Appeals, Amarillo, Texas: $0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per

the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, VIVIAN LONG, CLERK OF THE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of

the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears

of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand

and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the

Seventh District of Texas on February 3, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14698]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel. RC2 Medical Sequencing.
    Date: July 15-16, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda North Marriott and Conference Center, 5701 
Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Rudy O. Pozzatti, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research 
Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 9306, Rockville, MD 
20852. (301) 402-0838. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#62120d181803161610220f030b0e4c0c0b0a4c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f3f2035352e3b3b3d0f222e26236121262761282039">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 17, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-14698 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 

NO. 03-14-00407-CR 

JERRYL ROBINSON § IN THE THIRD 

VS. § DISTRICT COURT OF 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPEALS OF TEXAS 

LETTER OF ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES

TO THE CLERK OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 

On July 20, 2015, the above-captioned cause was submitted to the Court on 

briefs. Since submitting its brief, counsel for the State has discovered two 

additional authorities which may be of some use to the Court. They are as follows: 

 1. This citation may be relevant to footnote three on page 11 of the State’s 

Brief: Martinez v. State, 826 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (“We granted 

applicant’s petition for discretionary review wherein he contends the State violated 

art. 17.151 by charging applicant with aggravated robbery, thereby effectively 

preventing his release from jail. Applicant has been convicted of the underlying 

offense and is no longer subject to pre-trial confinement. Therefore, applicant’s 

petition is moot and we will not address the merits of his petition.”). 

 2. This citation may be relevant to page 14 of the State’s Brief: Schroeder v. 

State, 307 S.W.3d 578, 580 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2010, pet. ref’d) (“In this case, 

Schroeder did not obtain a ruling on his motion to dismiss before the grand jury 

returned its indictment. Therefore, when the trial court ruled on Schroeder’s 

motion, and because the grand jury had at that point returned an indictment, the 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00407-CR

6132778

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/20/2015 11:21:39 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/20/2015 11:21:39 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

trial court was no longer required to release Schroeder from custody. See Ex parte 

Countryman, 226 S.W.3d 435, 436–39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)”).

Please ensure said citations are brought to the attention of the Court, and 

thank you for your assistance. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joshua D. Presley

Joshua D. Presley - SBN: 24088254

preslj@co.comal.tx.us

Comal Criminal District Attorney’s Office 

150 N. Seguin Avenue, Suite 307

New Braunfels, Texas 78130

Ph: (830) 221-1300 / Fax: (830) 608-2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joshua D. Presley, Assistant District Attorney for the State of Texas, 

Appellee, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Letter of Additional

Authorities has been sent to Appellant JERRYL ROBINSON’s attorney of record 

in this matter:

Marilee Hazel Brown

marilee@hazelbrownlaw.com

Hazel Brown Wright Reneau, PLLC

391 Landa Street

New Braunfels, TX 78130

Attorney for Appellant on Appeal

By electronic service to the above email address through efile.txcourts.gov this 20

th

day of July, 2015.

 /s/ Joshua D. Presley

 Joshua D. Presley
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FOR THE DECEMBER
31, 1996 FORM 10-K OF HOLCO MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION-I AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              92
<SECURITIES>                                     9,403
<RECEIVABLES>                                       72
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   164
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              176
<BONDS>                                          8,816
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                         581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,579
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   862
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    10
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     22
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 22
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        22
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEIRON MARQUETT ELIAS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

A. LICHINOV, Correctional Officer, in 

official and individual capacities, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-56103 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-07457-MWF-JC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Keiron Marquette Elias appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

excessive use of force, deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and 

violation of his right to free exercise of religion. We have jurisdiction under 28 

* 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).

FILED

MAY 19 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-56103 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 

F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Elias’s action because Elias failed to 

allege facts sufficient to show that defendant used force maliciously and 

sadistically against him, knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Elias’s

health, or substantially burdened Elias’s religious practice. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally 

construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible 

claim for relief); see also Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir.

2015) (“A person asserting a free exercise claim must show that the government 

action in question substantially burdens the person’s practice of [his] religion.”); 

Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 903-904 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) 

(discussing Eighth Amendment excessive force and medical deliberate indifference 

claims). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

               We consent to the use in the Registration Statements Nos.
          33-16539, 33-37173, 33-43155, 33-85270, 33-94438, 333-00855,
          333-11385, 333-11387, 333-11389, 333-25953, 333-48533, 333-48535,
          333-46867, 333-62673, 333-45053, 333-66857, 333-73007, 333-76233,
          333-80281, 333-85135, 333-88586, 333-98735 and 333-101331 of Stratex
          Networks, Inc. (formerly DMC Stratex Networks, Inc. and hereafter
          referred to as "the Company") on Form S-8 of our reports dated April
          25, 2003, related to the consolidated financial statements and
          financial statement schedule of the Company as of and for the year
          ended March 31, 2003, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
          Stratex Networks, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2003.

          /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
          San Jose, California

          May 19, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10


                                [CYBERCARE LOGO]

                                                  Direct Dial:  (561) 742-5108
                                                   Direct Fax:  (561) 742-5003


                               September 21, 2001


Via Email (without enclosures) and Express Mail


Mr. Anthony Cheung
Tri Cap Securities, Inc.

_________________
_________________


      RE:   WARRANT

Dear Mr. Cheung:

Enclosed please find a warrant, entitling Tri Cap Securities, Inc. ("Tri Cap"),
or an assignee, to purchase 3,700,000 of CyberCare, Inc. common stock upon the
terms set forth in the warrant ("Warrant").

The Warrant is compensation for the efforts of both Anthony Cheung and Tri Cap
in connection with CyberCare's SIIC Medical Joint Venture, CyberCare's projects
in Japan and Hong Kong and for all efforts on behalf of CyberCare in general
(the "Services"). This Warrant contains a one time right of assignment so it can
be used for the benefit of others that assisted you in connection with the
Services.

The Warrant is issued to you as full satisfaction for the services Tri Cap and
you personally have performed for CyberCare. Anthony Cheung and Tri Cap
("Releasors") hereby release, and forever discharge CyberCare, its affiliates,
subsidiaries, successors, assigns, officers, directors, shareholders, agents
and/or employees ("Releasees") of and from all claims, causes of action, suits,
debts, accounts, bills, covenants, contracts, agreements, promises and damages
whatsoever, in law or in equity, arising out of or in connection with the
Services which the Releasors ever had, now have, or which any personal
representative, successor, heir or assign of the Releasors, hereafter can, shall
or may have, against Releasees from the beginning of time to the date hereof.

Please signify both the acknowledgement and agreement of Tri Cap and yourself
personally with the foregoing by executing a copy of this letter in the space
provided below and returning it to my attention.

                                    Sincerely

                                    /s/ Daniel W. Bivins, Jr.
                                    Daniel W. Bivins, Jr.
                                    Senior Vice President


ACCEPTED AND AGREED
As of this 21st day of September, 2001.


TRI CAP SECURITIES, INC.
By: /s/ ANTHONY CHEUNG
    --------------------------
Name: ANTHONY CHEUNG
      ------------------------
Its: DIRECTOR
     -------------------------



                               WWW.CYBER-CARE.NET
                          --------------------------
       2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 1000 - Boynton Beach, FL 33426 -
                         561-742-5000 - 561-742-5009
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17448

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cr-00090-SCB-MAP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DIANA LOVERA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 28, 2017)

Before MARCUS, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal 

waiver in Lovera’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 

997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced 

Case: 16-17448 Date Filed: 07/28/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 

1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by 

comments the court makes during sentencing”); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 

399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes 

waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant 

error).

Case: 16-17448 Date Filed: 07/28/2017 Page: 2 of 2
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00050

- CV

Pedro Perez v. Rudy Garza Jr.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021CCV

- 61552

- 5

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 7, 2 022
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11798 and #11799]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of  Kansas (FEMA—1848—DR), dated 06/24/2009. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storm and Record and Near Record Snow. *Incident Period:*
                         03/26/2009 through 03/29/2009.
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         06/24/2009. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/24/2009. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/24/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on  06/24/2009, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Butler, Chase, Chautauqua, Coffey,  Cowley, Dickinson, Elk, Grant, Greenwood, Harvey, Lyon, Marion, Sumner, Woodson. *The Interest Rates are:* Percent*Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere:*
4.500*Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere:*
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11798B and for economic injury is 11799B (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E9-15715 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7431

BENJAMIN F. SALLEE, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER JOYNER; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COCKRAN; LIEUTENANT WELLS; CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER BANKS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BRADFORD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-98-5-2)

Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin F. Sallee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin F. Sallee, Jr. appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action. The district

court’s dismissal is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v.

Sugar Workers’ Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.

1993). A dismissal without prejudice could be final if “no

amendment [to the complaint] could cure defects in the plaintiff's

case.” Id. at 1067. In ascertaining whether a dismissal without

prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine

“whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending the

complaint.” Id. at 1066-67. Appellant could refile his complaint

if he particularized his claims as ordered by the district court.

We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because

we find the dismissal without prejudice of the complaint is not

appealable.

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