alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40633 Conference Calendar

JOHN A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOHN J. EASTLAND, Attorney at Law; DAVID DOBBS, Assistant District Attorney, Smith County, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:01-CV-486

- - - - - - - - - - December 11, 2002 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John A. Williams, Texas prisoner # 559903, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous. Williams was convicted of aggravated sexual assault. He alleged below that the attorney who represented him at trial committed malpractice and breached his contract to represent Williams because he provided ineffective assistance of counsel.No. 02-40633 -2- Williams also alleged that the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) who prosecuted the case conspired with his attorney to deprive him of a fair trial and to allow him to receive an excessive sentence. The district court held that the ADA was entitled to prosecutorial immunity and that the claims against Williams’ attorney were barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), until such time as he was able to show that his conviction had been invalidated. Williams has abandoned his claim against the ADA by failing to brief this issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). He argues that the district court improperly construed his complaint as a habeas action when it was based on breach of contract and malpractice. Because Williams’ claims are based on his attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance, they are barred by Heck because he has not shown that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, invalidated, or otherwise called into question. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’ complaint as frivolous.
AFFIRMED.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7758

JASON ROBERT VICKERS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. KENNETH DIGGS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:19

- hc

- 02300

- BO )

Submitted : February 23 , 2021 Decided: February 26, 2021

Before MOTZ , KEENAN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Jason Robert Vickers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jason Robert Vickers seeks to appeal the district court’s orde r dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petition s are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 2 8 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)).
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a consti tutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When , as here, 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 d enial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565
U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vickers 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### WOLFSOHN v. RAAB.

Civ. No. 11728.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

May *1,*1951.

Harry W. Steinhrook, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Ploward Wallner, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

McGRANERY, District Judge.

Defendant moves to vacate a default judgment, under Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. It appears that the defendant, a resident of Florida, had been served with a summons and complaint while in Philadelphia on business, on December 15, 1950. Upon his return to Florida, on or about December 25, he turned the summons and complaint over to his Florida attorney, who, on December 28, forwarded the papers to a Philadelphia correspondent, who returned them by mail on December 30, advising he would not represent defendant. The papers arrived from Philadelphia on January 3, whereupon the Florida counsel immediately telephoned another attorney in Philadelphia who- did undertake to represent the defendant. The summons and complaint were forwarded to him by air mail, with an analysis of the plaintiff’s claim and the defense to' be prepared. On January 4, the last day to answer, defendant’s Philadelphia counsel prepared certain motions but, owing to' a miscalculation of the time by Florida counsel, as well as by himself, he neglected to file them until January 5. On that day, a default judgment was entered.

*255Permission to plead after the allotted time, under Rule 60(b), is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge, Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp., 3 Cir., 130 F.2d 185. The delay was a matter of only one day. It was the result of mistakes in time calculation made by both Florida and Philadelphia counsel of the defendant. The plaintiff’s claim is a substantial one «nd the defendant sets up a meritorious defense. According the defendant his'day in court will work no prejudice to the plaintiff and will be in the interest of justice. “ * * * [Discretion to avert injustice because of mistake or inadvertence of counsel should not be confined, and by the rule cited is not confined, by arbitrary limitations.” La Barbera v. Grubard, 2 Cir., 112 F.2d 738, 739.

The default judgment, therefore, will be set aside.
# industry_titles_m2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ZIEGLER
COMPANIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       4,231,808
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,047,236
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0<F1>
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                        108,445,848<F2>
<PP&E>                                       7,090,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             155,845,394
<SHORT-TERM>                                29,796,420<F3>
<PAYABLES>                                   8,053,915<F4>
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                 50,561,962<F5>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,544,030
<OTHER-SE>                                  48,697,968
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               155,845,394
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0<F6>
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         4,327,412
<COMMISSIONS>                                        0<F6>
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>               30,642,641<F6>
<FEE-REVENUE>                                5,869,128
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,568,541
<COMPENSATION>                              22,329,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,336,521
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   6,336,521
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,044,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
<FN>
<F1>Short-term investments include some securities purchased under resale
agreements.
<F2>Financial instruments include securities inventory, investment in leases,
notes receivable, and investment in and receivables from affiliates.
<F3>Includes short-term notes payable and unsecured notes payable to banks under
line of credit arrangements.
<F4>Includes payable to customers, payable to broker-dealers, accounts payable, and
dividends payable.
<F5>Includes bonds payable and notes payable to banks other than line of credit
borrowings.
<F6>Revenue from investment banking activities includes revenue from trading
activities and commissions.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00431-CV

Ali ALABUDI,

Appellant

v.

Amelia GELIN,

Appellee

From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24-1192-CV-B

Honorable Daniel H. Mills, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 25, 2024

DISMISSED

Appellant Ali Alabudi has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a 

certificate of service to appellee Amelia Gelin; appellee has filed no opposition to appellant’s 

motion to dismiss. Therefore, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CEO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Lee Roy Mitchell

Lee Roy MitchellChief Executive Officer
  /s/ Carol Waldman

Name: Carol WaldmanTitle: Notary Public
 06/07/08
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 9, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-51356

Summary Calendar

 

RAMON ALBERTO GARCIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TIMOTHY KEITH; ERNESTO GUTIERREZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-02-CV-311)

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint and denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant Ramon Alberto Garcia, TDCJ-ID

# 792815, filed a notice of appeal in this court, which we have

construed as a motion to proceed IFP. Garcia is challenging the

district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good

faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(c)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). The district court
2

dismissed Garcia’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).

Garcia asserts that the district court mistakenly assumed that

the prison was on “lock-down” status or that the dining hall was

full, erred in finding his assertions of the defendants’

involvement to be “conclusory” and “unsupported,” erred in

addressing his claim of “severe” living conditions, and erred in

finding his claim of denial of access to the law library unlikely.

He also asserts that the district court was biased. 

Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that Garcia

has not shown a non-frivolous issue for appeal. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). We uphold the district

court’s order certifying that the appeal was not taken in good

faith. We also conclude that the instant appeal is without

arguable merit and is frivolous. Garcia’s motion to proceed IFP is

DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117

F.3d at 202 and n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The dismissal of Garcia’s complaint in the district court and

the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous each count as a “strike”

for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Garcia that once he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil

action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any

facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Legal workers

This occupational group includes lawyers, judicial law clerks, judges, 

arbitrators, mediators, conciliators, paralegals, legal assistants, court 

reporters, title examiners, abstractors, and searchers.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make decisions, 

interact with others, and adapt to changes in jobs. In 2023, verbal 

interactions were required constantly (every few minutes) for 10.4 

percent of legal workers, and were required not constantly, but more 

than once per hour for 66.5 percent.

Table 1. Percentage of legal workers with cognitive and mental requirements, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Pace: Pause control 95.3 4.7

Interaction with general public 98.8 1.2

Working around crowds <0.5 >99.5

Telework 53.8 46.2

Work review: Supervising others 27.7 72.3

Work review: Presence of supervisor 55.1 44.9

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, training, and 

experience requirements

The minimum level of formal 

education required, credentials 

necessary, on-the-job training, 

and prior work experience 

necessary for average 

performance in jobs.

In 2023, credentials were 

required for 78.2 percent of 

legal workers. Prior work 

experience was required for 

53.5 percent and on-the-job 

training was required for 60.3 

percent.

A professional degree was 

required for 60.5 percent of 

legal workers.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete 

hazards or difficulties that are in the 

vicinity of where jobs’ critical tasks are 

performed.

In 2023, greater than 99.5 percent of 

legal workers were not exposed to 

extreme cold, and greater than 99.5 

percent were not exposed to extreme 

heat. Wetness was not present for 

greater than 99.5 percent, greater 

than 99.5 percent were not exposed 

to heavy vibrations, and 98.4 percent 

were not exposed to the outdoors.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities required 

to perform tasks in jobs. The presence 

and, in some cases, duration of these 

activities are published.

In 2023, keyboarding was required for 

greater than 99.5 percent of legal 

workers and was not required for less 

than 0.5 percent. For less than 0.5 

percent of workers, keyboarding was 

seldom performed, for 27.8 percent 

keyboarding occurred occasionally, 68.2 

percent frequently, and for 3.7 percent 

keyboarding occurred constantly.

Performing work in low postures was 

required for 6.6 percent of legal workers 

and was not required for 93.4 percent.

The choice to sit or stand when performing critical tasks was available to 85.3 percent of legal workers. On average, 

workers spent 84.8 percent of the workday sitting and 15.2 percent of the workday standing.

Table 2. Percentage of legal workers with physical demands, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing 85.3 14.7

Driving 39.1 60.9

Climbing structure-related ramps or stairs 12.4 87.6

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7037

JOHN DOUGLAS ALEXANDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Director; WILLIAM D. CATOE,

Deputy Director; COLIE L. RUSHTON; LEROY

CARTLEDGE, Major; D. MCTAGGER, Captain; P.

JONES, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-2598-6-20AK)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Douglas Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner,

Jr., CLARKSON, FORTSON, WALSH & RHENEY, P.A., Greenville, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Alexander v. Moore, No. CA-97-2598-6-20AK (D.S.C. June 18, 1998).

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
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

*Notice is hereby given*                     of the cancellation of the Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee meeting, October 4, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Conference Room C/D, Bethesda, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 11, 2017, 82 FR 37595, pages 37595-37596.                

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 22, 2017.

Sylvia L. Neal, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-18123 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
No. 517.

#### D. A. Schulte, Inc. *v.*Gangi et al.

June 10, 1946.

Order entered amending the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 14-1191V 

Filed: October 14, 2015 

Not for Publication 

************************************* 

ANTHONY LAWSON, * 

* 

 Petitioner, * 

 * 

 v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* 

************************************* 

P. Richard Talley, Dandridge, TN, for petitioner. 

Althea W. Davis, Washington, DC, for respondent. 

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On October 14, 2015, the parties filed the attached stipulation in which they agreed to 

settle this case and described the settlement terms. Petitioner alleges that he suffered from 

brachial plexopathy caused by his receipt of the influenza (“flu”) vaccine on January 4, 2014. 

He further alleges that he experienced the residual effects of this injury for more than six months. 

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner to suffer brachial plexopathy or any 

other injury and further denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s current condition. 

Nonetheless, the parties agreed to resolve this matter informally.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this 

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete such information prior to the document’s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

delete such material from public access.

Damages decision based on 

stipulation; influenza (“flu”) 

vaccine; brachial plexopathy

 
 The undersigned finds the terms of the stipulation to be reasonable. The court hereby 

adopts the parties’ said stipulation, attached hereto, and awards compensation in the amount and 

on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court awards a lump sum of 

$55,000.00, representing compensation for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-15(a). The award shall be in the form of a check for $55,000.00 made payable to 

petitioner.

 In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of 

the court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2015 s/ Laura D. Millman

 Laura D. Millman

 Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or 

jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.