alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 5147

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 23055

Sherman Way in West Hills, California, as the ‘‘Evan Asa Ashcraft Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

23055 Sherman Way in West Hills, California, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Evan Asa Ashcraft Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Evan Asa

Ashcraft Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
*The HONORABLE ANDREW W. BOGUE, United States District

Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by

designation.

 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge 2

for the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 95-2219 

___________

Larken Minnesota, Inc.; Larken, *

Inc.; Larken Iowa City, Inc., *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dirk A. Wray; Al Yip, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendants, *

*

Lenora K. Chen; Pine Hill *

Minnesota, Inc.; Pine Hill *

Minnesota Investments, Inc.; *

Pine Hill Iowa, Inc.; Pine *

Hill Iowa Investments, Inc., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 10, 1996 

 Filed: July 1, 1996

___________

Before BEAM and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, District Judge. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

Larken Minnesota, Inc., Larken, Inc., and Larken Iowa City, Inc.

(collectively, Larken) appeal the district court's order requiring Larken 2

to sell its interests in two hotels to the
-2-

appellees, at the appellees' bid price, pursuant to the deadlock provisions

in the partnership agreements. Having reviewed the parties' briefs and

submissions, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct.

Accordingly, based upon the well-reasoned opinion of the district court,

we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

------------------------------------------------x

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Hon. Katharine S. Hayden

-vCriminal No. 11-165(KSH)

VINCENZO GENOVESE,

Defendant. ORDER 

------------------------------------------------x

Upon the application of Jeffrey C. Hoffman, Hoffman & Pollok, LLP, attorneys 

for the above named defendant, and no opposition appearing, it is hereby

It is on this 10th day of September, 2012,

ORDERED that the United States Department of Probation shall release and 

return the passport of Vincenzo Genovese, who was sentenced to a term of one year 

probation and six months home detention on July 12, 2012; and it is further 

ORDERED that Vincenzo Genovese’s passport shall be released to his attorneys:

Hoffman & Pollok, LLP, c/o Susan C. Wolfe, Esq., 260 Madison Avenue, New York, 

NY 10016.

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden

___________________________

KATHARINE S. HAYDEN

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cr-00165-KSH Document 110 Filed 09/10/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 416
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_______________________________________

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

: Criminal No. 11-339 (FSH)

v. :

: ORDER

RONALD HARRIS, JR. :

:

Defendant. :

_______________________________________:

This matter having come before the Court upon letter received August 7, 2012 from

defendant Ronald Harris, Jr., through his counsel Alan Bowman, Esq., requesting that the selfsurrender date of August 14, 2012 be extended to September 7, 2012; and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 8 day of August, 2012, th

ORDERED that the defendant’s request to extend the self-surrender date to September 7,

2012 is hereby GRANTED; it is further

ORDERED that the defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this District

no later than 12:00p.m. on September 7, 2012; it is further 

ORDERED that no further extensions will be granted; it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court provide certified copies of this Order to the U.S. Marshal

Service and U.S. Probation forthwith. 

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

United States District Judge
Case 3:11-cv-01821-PGS-TJB Document 10 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 50
Case 3:11-cv-01821-PGS-TJB Document 10 Filed 09/30/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 51
Case 3:11-cv-01821-PGS-TJB Document 10 Filed 09/30/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 52
Case 3:11-cv-01821-PGS-TJB Document 10 Filed 09/30/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 53
THIS NOTE AND THE SECURITIES ISSUABLE UPON ITS CONVERSION HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE "ACT"), OR SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED, SOLD, ASSIGNED, PLEDGED, TRANSFERRED OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAWS OR PURSUANT TO AN AVAILABLE EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT AND SUCH LAWS AND, IF REQUESTED BY THE MAKER, UPON DELIVERY OF AN OPINION OF COUNSEL REASONABLY SATISFACTORY TO THE MAKER THAT THE PROPOSED TRANSFER IS EXEMPT FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT AND SUCH LAWS.

THIS NOTE IS SUBJECT TO AGREEMENTS, COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS IN REGARD TO ITS TRANSFER AS PROVIDED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THAT CERTAIN SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED AS OF FEBRUARY 12, 2003 BY AND BETWEEN THE MAKER AND WARBURG PINCUS PRIVATE EQUITY VIII, L.P., A COPY OF WHICH IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE MAKER.

CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED PROMISSORY NOTE
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10627 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Ryder Shane Altman,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 72

- 1

Before **Clement, Higginson,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Ryder Shane Altman pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to distribution of child pornography and was sentenced to 192 months of imprisonment, to be served consecutively to Altman’s anticipated probation revocation for a prior state court pornograp hy conviction. He argues on

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir**  **cuit R**  **ule 47.5.4.**  United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 9, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10627 Document: 00515892897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2021No. 20

- 10627

2 appeal that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the presentence report’s reference to application note 4(C) to U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. He further contends that the district court abused its discretion in not granting his motion to continue his sentenc ing hearing so that he could obtain a mitigation expert.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of Altman ’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014)

. Altman’s appeal waiver, which the Government invokes , bars his challenge to the denial of his
motion for a continuance. See United States v. Story , 439 F.3d 226, 231 (5th Cir. 2006) ; United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-10627 Document: 00515892897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1798

FRANCINE COLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; MICHAEL D. WADE, Individually; PAT WELLS, Individually; K. OUIDETTE GASQUE-CARTER, Individually; ELAINE ROBB, R.N., Individually; A. S. DUNBAR, Individually, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-412-1-17BC) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francine Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Elford Carpenter, Jr., Georgia Anna Mitchell, S. Elizabeth Brosnan, William Curry McDow,RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Columbia, South Carolina; James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina; Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Francine Cole appeals the district court’s orders dismissingher 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cole v. Richland Mem’l Hosp. , No. CA-99-412-1-17BC (D.S.C. March 23 & Ma y 4 & 22, 2000). In light of this disposition, we deny Cole’s motion to ensure corrected record on appeal and/or supplement the district court’s transcript. We dispensewith 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
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30072

CANAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee,

VERSUS

WILBURN CONTAINER X-PRESS INCORPORATED; ET AL.,

Defendants,

.

FLEXI-VAN LEASING, INC.

Defendant - Counter Claimant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Louisiana

(D. Ct. No.94-CV-911) July 26, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant-defendant-counter claimant Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc.

appeals the district court’s ruling denying its motion for new

trial and/or for reconsideration and dismissing the counterclaim

without prejudice on December 19, 1995. The district court had2

previously issued an order dismissing without pre judice the

declaratory action of plaintiff-appellee, Canal Indemnity Company,

on July 24, 1995.

District courts’ decisions about the propriet y of hearing

declaratory judgment actions, which are necessarily bound up with

their decisions about the propriety of granting declaratory relief,

should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. W ilton v. Seven Falls

Co.

, 115 S.Ct. 2137 (1995), affirming Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.

, 41

F.3d 934, 935 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Torch, Inc. v. LeBlanc , 947

F.2d 193, 194 (5th Cir. 1991)). It is more consistent with the

Declaratory Judgment Act to vest district courts with discretion in

the f irst instance, because facts bearing on the declaratory

judgmen t remedy’s usefulness, and the case’s fitness for

resolution, are particularly within their grasp. 115 S.Ct. at 2144.

Consequently, district courts’ decisions to stay or dismiss

counterclaims filed in response to a dismissed declaratory judgment

action are matters within the s ound exercise of their discretion

and are also reviewable for abuse of that discretion.

Under the circumstances, we conclude that the district court

acted within the bounds of its discretion in dismi ssing without

prejudice Flexi-Van’s state law counterclaim, which arises out of

the sam e occurrence that formed the subject matter of the

declarato ry judgment action, and which may be presented for

ventilation in parallel proceedings in state court. Thus, the3

district court’s order dismissing Flexi-Van’s counterclaim without

prejudice and denying its motion on December 19, 1995 is AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-31163 Conference Calendar

__________________ MARY ANN LOVELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus DAVID NEWELL Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-1209-S
- - - - - - - - - April 16, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mary Ann Lovell appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of her complaint against David Newell for failure to prosecute. Having sua sponte raised the issue of jurisdiction, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the complaint on the basis of Lovell’s failure to meet her burden of establishing in her complaint that the district court had jurisdiction over the matter. See Gaar v. Quirk , 86 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir. 1996)( sua sponte noticing jurisdictional defect);No. 96-31163 -2- United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.)(affirming on the alternative basis of lack of jurisdiction), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 600 (1994). AFFIRMED.
# table171_q16.6_size