alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                                  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                  |  |
|                                                                             | State of Incorporation or Organization |
| BMC West Corporation                                                             | Delaware |
| SelectBuild Construction, Inc.                                                   | Delaware |
|       SelectBuild Southern California, Inc.        | Delaware |
| BMC Stock Services, LLC                                                          | Delaware |
| BMC Stock Services B, LLC                                                        | Delaware |
| Stock Building Supply West, LLC                                                  | Utah |
|        SBS/Bison Building Materials, LLC      | Delaware |
| Stock Building Supply West (USA), Inc.                                           | Delaware |
| Michael Nicholas Carpentry, LLC                                                  | Illinois |
| Stock Building Supply, LLC                                                       | North Carolina |
|        TBSG, LLC                              | Delaware |
|        Coleman Floor, LLC                     | Delaware |
|        Coleman Floor Southeast, LLC           | Delaware |
|        Stock Building Supply of Arkansas, LLC | Delaware |
|        Stock Window & Door Southeast, LLC | Delaware |
|        SBS Guilford, LLC                      | Delaware |
|        Stock Building Supply Midwest, LLC     | Delaware |
| Stock Building Supply of Florida, LLC                                            | Delaware |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

TYRONE HARRIS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 400 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 10634 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16

- cr
- 20652

- UU

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LEWIS MORGAN, a.k.a. Albert Johnson a.k.a. Arthur Wilson a.k.a. Edward Jones,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( June 29, 2020 ) Case: 20-10634 Date Filed: 06/29/2020 Page: 1 of 32 Before WILSON , GRANT, and LUCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Robert Lewis Morgan, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the
district court’s denial of his Fed eral R ule of Civ il P rocedure 60(b) motion in which he sought to challenge his criminal conviction s based on alleged Fourth and Fifth
Amendment violations

. But , o n appeal, Morgan does not argue about the alleged
Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations at all , much less challenge the ba ses for
the district court’s denial . Instead he argues , for the first time on appeal, that his
counsel was ineffective in violation of the Sixth Amendment because counsel advised him to plead guilty to “ knowingly ” committing crimes when Morgan had
not in fact acted “knowingly.” He claims that he is innocent. For the following reasons, we affirm. To start, “[i] t is well established in this circuit that, absent extraordinary circumstances, legal theories and arguments not raised squarely before the district court cannot be broached for the first time on appeal .” Bryant v. Jones , 575 F.3d 1281, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009) . As Morgan did not raise his ineffective assistance or innocence arguments before the district court in his motion, we will not conside r them for the first time on appeal. Further, “w hen an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal

. . . the grounds on which the district court based its [decision] , he is deemed to have

Case: 20-10634 Date Filed: 06/29/2020 Page: 2 of 33 abandoned any challenge of [those] ground [s], ” and affirmance is due. United
States v. King , 751 F.3d 1268, 1277 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (alteration adopted)

. Here, the district court denied Morgan’s motion because “Rule 60(b) simply does not provide relief from judgment in a criminal case” and Morgan was “attempting to circumvent filing an amended pleading in his pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 case.” Morgan did not challenge properly on appeal either of those grounds . Therefore, he has abandoned any challenge of them , and we affirm

. AFFIRMED. Case: 20-10634 Date Filed: 06/29/2020 Page: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          75,936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,078,900<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     96,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,312,689
<PP&E>                                       1,850,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                 593,180
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,659,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          584,195
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    450,000
<COMMON>                                    16,816,537
<OTHER-SE>                                   (523,400)<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,659,581
<SALES>                                        263,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,312
<CGS>                                          310,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  310,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,941,635
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,738,043)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,738,043)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,738,043)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES STOCK SUBSCRIPTION RECEIVABLE OF $903,000
<F2>NOTE RECEIVABLE FOR COMMON STOCK OF $202,376 AND NOTE RECEIVABLE FOR
PREFERRED STOCK OF $321,024 ARE SHOWN AS CONTRA-EQUITY ACCOUNTS
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 403 

To revise the authorized route of the North Country National Scenic Trail 

in northeastern Minnesota and to extend the trail into Vermont to 

connect with the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2015 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. 

STABENOW, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. BALDWIN, and Mr. PETERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To revise the authorized route of the North Country National 

Scenic Trail in northeastern Minnesota and to extend 

the trail into Vermont to connect with the Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘North Country Na5 tional Scenic Trail Route Adjustment Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 403 IS

1 SEC. 2. ROUTE ADJUSTMENT. 

2 Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1244(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘thirty two hundred miles, ex5 tending from eastern New York State’’ and inserting 

6 ‘‘4,600 miles, extending from the Appalachian Trail 

7 in Vermont’’; and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘Proposed North Country Trail’’ 

9 and all that follows through ‘‘June 1975.’’ and in10 serting ‘‘ ‘North Country National Scenic Trail, Au11 thorized Route’ dated February 2014, and numbered 

12 649/116870.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## £ (&aurt ofAppeals 

### Txf i\[ iBtstrirt of(E*xas at Sallas JUDGMENT CHARLES WILLIAM RANDLES, Appellant No. 05-91-01505-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 283rd District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F87- 70227-T). Opinion delivered per curiambefore Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Maloney and Hankinson. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered November 20, 1996.

/f^rt^X^ WA^^i^gy**-^ DEBORAH G. HANKINSON JUSTICE 0Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 20, 1996

In The 

### Court ofAppeals 

### JTtftlr iBtstrirt of©eseas at Dallas No. 05-91-01505-CR CHARLES WILLIAM RANDLES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F87-70227-T OPINION PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Maloney and Hankinson 

### Charles William Randies appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine. Punishment was assessed at eight years in prison. 

### On August 23, 1996, we ordered the trial court to conduct ahearing to determine 

### whether appellant desired to pursue his appeal, and ifso, to determine whether appeUant was indigent and entitled to appointed counsel. 

### On October 28, 1996, we received the supplemental transcript containing the trial... i^J^^#?.l^^^&ft^>l^?*

court's findings of fact and recommendations. The trial court found that appellant was served notice of the hearing by serving him at 701 Cherry Lane in White Settlement, but appellant did not appear atthe hearing. Based on appellant's failure to appear, the trial court concluded appellant no longer wishes to pursue his appeal and recommended dismissing the appeal. 

### The supplemental transcript also contains the affidavit of Regina Grimes, assistant 

### general counsel for the Legal Affairs Division for the Parole Division of the Texas 

### Department of Criminal Justice. Ms. Grimes stated that appellant was declared an absconder and aprerevocation warrant was issued for his arrest on August 26, 1996. We adopt the trial court's determination that appellant no longer desires to pursue 

### his appeal. Because no briefhas been filed, no contentions oferror are properlybefore us for review.1 Our examination of the record does not disclose any fundamental error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 90 911505F.U05 

### 1

Appellant'sretainedcounselRossTeterfiled anAndersbriefasserting the appealwasfrivolous andwithoutmerit. See AnA,r<l CaTfornia 386 US 738 (1967). The Court, however, struck the briefon July 30, 1996 because the procedural 

## Xu"^ S A&plyIJ^V** torepresentanindigentappellant, nottoretainedattorney, SeeJeffery, State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.).
CHIEFJUSTICECAROLYNWRIGHTJUSTICESDAVIDL.BRIDGESMOLLYFRANCISDOUGLASS.LANGELIZABETHLANG-MIERSROBERTM.FILLMORELANAMYERSDAVIDEVANSDAVIDLEWISADABROWNCRAIGSTODDARTBILLWIIITEIIILLDAVIDJ.SCHENCKQiutirtofApprain1ft!}iutdctoftNfl5atUattan600COMMERCESTREET,SUITE200DALLAS,TEXAS75202(214)712-3400LISAMATZCLERKOFTIlECOURT(214)712-3450lisa.matz6jsth.txcourtsgovGAYLEHUMPABUSINESSADMINISTRATOR(214)712-3434gayle.huInpa@Sth.tcourts.govFACSIMILE(214)745-1083INTERNETUP://5TII.TXCDURTSGOVBillyWayneWilliamsNo.1267302HughesUnitRt.2,Box4400Gatesville,TX76597RE:05-15-01148-CRNovember9,2015BillyWayneWilliamsv.TheStateofTexasDearMr.Williams:Inresponsetoyourinquiry,enclosedisacopyofthecorrespondencewereceivedfromtheDallasCountyDistrictClerkregardingnewordersinyourcaseEnclosureSincerely,Is!LisaMatz.ClerkoftheCourtltr:mrhST?op7/*FELICIAPITREDALLASCOUNTYDISTRICTCLERICFILEDIN5thCOURTOFAPPEALSDALLAS,TEXAS9/24/20159:17:04AMLISAMATZClerkSeptember24,2015The5°CourtofAppealAflN:LisaMatzGeorgeL.AllenSr.CourtsBuilding600CommerceStreet,Suite200Dallas,Texas75202RE:BILLYWAYNEWILLIAMS,5T11COACAUSENo:CauseNo:N/AF03-00824-WDearMrs.LisaMatz:Intheabovecase,therewasanoticeofappealfileddatedAugust27,2615,therearenomotionsarejudgmentfiledinthiscase.Sincerely,GaryFitzsimmonsDallasCountyDistrictClerkGivenundermyhandandseal;DeputyDistrictClerk133N.Riverfront,LB12DALLAS,TEXAS75207(214)-712-5013FAX(214)-653-59S6By:ReØnwTavlcrwebsite:nnv.daIIascounty.orgJdiMcIe[k/iI1dex.htrnl
EXHIBIT 10 (iii)(I)(b)


STERLING BANCORP LETTERHEAD


MARCH 12, 2009


March 12, 2009


Mr. John C. Millman,
President 

Sterling Bancorp 

650 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 10019


Dear Mr. Millman:


This
will confirm the following amendment to your Amended and Restated Employment
Agreement, dated as of March 22, 2002, with our Company, which was last amended
by letter agreement dated March 13, 2009:


The
date in the third line of Paragraph 1 (captioned “Term”) is amended to December
31, 2011.


The
foregoing amendment was adopted by the Compensation Committee and approved by
the Board of Directors at its March 12, 2009 meeting.


Kindly
sign and return the enclosed copy to the Company in order to confirm your
understanding and acceptance of the foregoing amendment.


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
Sincerely,
Sterling Bancorp


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
By: 

	
/s/ Dale C. Fredston


	
 

	
 

	
 

	



	
 

	
 

	
 

	
Dale C. Fredston


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
Secretary


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
Agreed:

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
 

	
 


	
/s/ John C. Millman

	
 

	
 

	
 


	


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
John C. Millman
#### Kevin Patrick BRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David LARIMER, et al., DefendantsAppellees, Jerome Gorski, et al., Defendants.

No. 07-2229-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 23, 2008.

Kevin Patrick Brady, pro se, East Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

PRESENT: Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Hon. B.D. PARKER, Hon. REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Kevin Patrick Brady, *pro se,*appeals from an April 24, 2007 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.) dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and a May 8, 2007 order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case, and the arguments on appeal.

This Court reviews the district court’s findings of lack of subject matter jurisdiction *de novo, see Makarova v. United States,*201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000), and reviews a district court order granting or denying a motion for relief from a final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) for abuse of discretion, *see Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana,*162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998); *Branum v. Clark,*927 F.2d 698, 704 (2d Cir.1991); *Maduakolam v. Columbia Univ.,*866 F.2d 53, 55 (2d Cir.1989). “A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” *Transaero, Inc.,*162 F.3d at 729 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Having reviewed the record, we agree that appellant’s complaint should have been dismissed for the reasons stated by the district court. Furthermore, we agree that appellant’s motion for reconsideration should have been denied for the reasons stated by the district court.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED and all pending motions are DENIED as moot.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 734 

To provide for the equitable distribution of Universal Service funds to rural 

States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2015 

Ms. AYOTTE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To provide for the equitable distribution of Universal Service 

funds to rural States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘USF Equitable Dis5 tribution Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUNDS. 

7 Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

8 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 734 IS

1 ‘‘(m) DISTRIBUTION OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE

2 FUNDS.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not less than 75 percent of 

4 all amounts collected by providers of interstate tele5 communications from consumers in a rural State for 

6 the purpose of making contributions under sub7 section (d) shall be allocated to the provision of uni8 versal service to consumers in that rural State. 

9 ‘‘(2) RURAL STATE.—In this subsection, the 

10 term ‘rural State’ means a State in which the total 

11 population density is not more than 200 people per 

12 square mile, as determined by the latest available 

13 decennial census conducted under section 141(a) of 

14 title 13, United States Code. 

15 ‘‘(3) AMOUNTS COLLECTED.—Nothing in this 

16 subsection shall be construed as requiring an in17 crease in amounts collected by providers of inter18 state telecommunications from consumers for the 

19 purpose of making contributions under subsection 

20 (d).’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 19 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 

adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2015 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the 

Senate and an adjournment of the House of Representatives. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on any day from Thursday, June 25, 2015, through Fri4 day, July 3, 2015, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on 

7 Tuesday, July 7, 2015, or such other time on that day 

8 as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee 

9 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of 

10 any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 19 ATS 

1 resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 

2 House adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, 

3 June 25, 2015, through Friday, July 3, 2015, on a motion 

4 offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Ma5 jority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 

6 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, or until the time of any 

7 reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolu8 tion, whichever occurs first. 

9 SEC. 2. (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his 

10 designee, after concurrence with the Minority Leader of 

11 the Senate, shall notify the Members of the Senate to reas12 semble at such place and time as he may designate if, in 

13 his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

14 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

15 when the Senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

16 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

17 the Senate shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

18 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

19 SEC. 3. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after con20 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House, shall no21 tify the Members of the House to reassemble at such place 

22 and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 

23 interest shall warrant it. 

24 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

25 when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SCON 19 ATS 

1 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

2 the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

3 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3405 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3405

To transfer certain items from the United States Munitions List to the 
                         Commerce Control List.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2016

Mr. Daines (for himself and Mrs. Capito) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To transfer certain items from the United States Munitions List to the 
                         Commerce Control List.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Export Control Reform Act of 2016''.

SEC. 2. EXPORT CONTROLS ON CERTAIN ITEMS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 38(f) of the Arms Export 
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)) or any other provision of law, all 
items described in subsection (b) that are on the United States 
Munitions List and controlled under section 38 of the Arms Export 
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) on the date of the enactment of this Act 
shall be transferred to the Commerce Control List of dual-use items in 
the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. part 730 et seq.).
    (b) Transferred Items.--The items referred to in subsection (a) are 
the following:
            (1) Non-automatic and semi-automatic firearms, including 
        all rifles, carbines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns.
            (2) Non-automatic and non-semi-automatic rifles, carbines, 
        revolvers, or pistols of a caliber greater than .50 inches 
        (12.7 mm) up to and including .72 inches (18.0 mm).
            (3) Ammunition for such firearms excluding caseless 
        ammunition.
            (4) Silencers, mufflers, and sound and flash suppressors.
            (5) Rifle scopes.
            (6) Barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames), or complete 
        breech mechanisms.
            (7) Related components, parts, accessories, attachments, 
        tooling, and equipment for any articles listed in paragraphs 
        (1) through (6).
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act and shall not apply to any export 
license issued before such effective date or to any export license 
application made under the United States Munitions List before such 
effective date.
                                 <all>
```