alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

January 26, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40235

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIS FLOYD WILEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CARL E. MCKELLAR; NEAL WEBB; MARY BILLUPS;

GUILLERMO DELAROSA; ANDRE WATSON; ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:04-CV-331

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willis Floyd Wiley, Texas prisoner # 753383, appeals the

district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and on

the merits. Wiley does not challenge the district court’s denial

of his exhaust claims on the merits, and he does not challenge

the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust other than

his allegations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

These claims are thus deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
No. 05-40235

-2-

Wiley asserts that he was not required to exhaust

administrative remedies with respect to his ADA claims. Under 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner must exhaust his administrative

remedies before bringing a civil action challenging prison

conditions. Wiley was thus required to exhaust his

administrative remedies for all his claims, including those

raised under the ADA, since they involved matters of prison life.

See Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739, (2001); see also

Clifford v. Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2002).

Wiley also contends that he is entitled to relief because

the magistrate judge failed to rule on his motion for a temporary

restraining order in her report and recommendation. He has not

established that he is entitled to relief on this ground. See

FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a), (b); Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. West Bend Co.,

123 F.3d 246, 250 (5th Cir. 1997).

Consequently, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. The judgment is, however, MODIFIED to reflect that the

dismissal of Wiley’s unexhausted claims is WITH PREJUDICE for

purposes of proceeding in an in forma pauperis proceeding

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See Underwood v. Wilson, 151

F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998). Wiley’s motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212

(5th Cir. 1982).
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2022_5_27_18_2" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 6. Effect of additional covariates on the between-group variance of Current Population Survey hourly wage, with age × occupation as baseline, 2000–19</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Timespan</th>
<th scope="col">Age × occupation baseline</th>
<th scope="col">+ Education</th>
<th scope="col">+ Industry</th>
<th scope="col">+ Interaction with MSA</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2000 to 2004</p>
</th>
<td>0.0735</td>
<td>0.0176</td>
<td>0.0069</td>
<td>0.0014</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2005 to 2010</p>
</th>
<td>0.0770</td>
<td>0.0192</td>
<td>0.0072</td>
<td>0.0020</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>2010 to 2014</p>
</th>
<td>0.0801</td>
<td>0.0209</td>
<td>0.0070</td>
<td>0.0020</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>2015 to 2019</p>
</th>
<td>0.0829</td>
<td>0.0201</td>
<td>0.0075</td>
<td>0.0019</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2022_5_27_18_2_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="5">
<p>Note: MSA = metropolitan statistical area.</p>
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51315 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALEJANDRO CORTES-MELENDEZ, also known as Roberto Macias-Saldana, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-375-ALL

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alejandro CortesMelendez raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Johnson, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 410]

Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto and Green, JJ.
#### Jhan P. GIBBS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Donald F. BAUKNECHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 07-7513.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.

Jhan P. Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jhan P. Gibbs, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Gibbs v. Bauknecht,*No. 6:07-cv-00735-GRA, 2007 WL 2822382 (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately *540presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to August 30, 2022)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-22-051 In re Interest of Anita L.

A-22-099 State v. Caillau

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41012]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18239]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2100-180--California]


 California Department of Water Resources; Notice of Availability 
of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's) 
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 380, the Office of 
Energy Projects has reviewed an application filed by the California 
Department of Water Resources on May 17, 2017, and supplemented June 16 
and June 20, 2017, to permanently reroute three existing primary 
transmission lines at the Feather River Project No. 2100 between the 
Hyatt Pumping-Generating Plant and the Table Mountain Substation. The 
proposal would allow California Department of Water Resources to 
continuously deliver electricity along a different route away from 
repair activities at the project's damaged main spillway and emergency 
spillway area. The Feather River Project is located on the Feather 
River in Butte County, California.
    Staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the application 
which analyzes the potential environmental effects of approving the 
requested transmission line modification. In the EA, staff concludes 
that such an approval, with specified environmental protection 
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission's Public 
Reference Room or it may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 
www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number P-2100-
180 in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, 
contact FERC Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eea8abbcada1808287808bbd9b9e9e819c9aae888b9c8dc0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="14525146575b7a787d7a71476164647b666054727166773a737b62">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free 
at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.
    For further information, contact Mr. John Aedo at (415) 369-3335 or 
by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f65606761216e6a6b604f696a7d6c21686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cf6f3f4f2b2fdf9f8f3dcfaf9eeffb2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 23, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18239 Filed 8-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### DEL VALLE RODRIGUEZ v. WHEELER et al.

Civ. No. 893.

United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Brownsville Division.

Aug. 14, 1954.

Johnson, Phillips, Hester, Jenkins *&*Lewis, Harlingen, Tex., for plaintiff.

Cox, Wagner, Adams & Wilson, Brownsville, Tex., for defendants.

ALLRED, District Judge.

Action for damages in the sum of $25,-775.65 by plaintiff, a citizen of Mexico, against defendants, resident citizens of Texas, arising out of the death of plaintiff’s husband in an automobile collision. “Plaintiff brings this action for the benefit of all persons entitled to damages for the death of the said Guadalupe del Valle Rodriguez.” The pleadings disclose that the deceased was survived by plaintiff, his wife, and by three children. One was born in Mexico, the other two in Texas. Also surviving were Rodriguez’s parents, citizens of Mexico who have disclaimed.

Defendant moves to dismiss on the ground that there is not complete diversity of citizenship since two of the minor children are citizens of Texas. Plaintiff *104has filed a brief but defendants have not favored the court with a brief in support of their motion.

Rule 17(a), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, but *a party authorized by statute may sue in his own name without joining with the*party *for whose benefit the action is brought.*Article 4675 of Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes provides that actions for damages arising from death may be brought by the surviving husband, wife, children and parents, “or by either of them for the benefit of all.” This right of any of the survivors to bring the action for the benefit, even without the consent, of all has been upheld by the Texas Supreme Court, Dennis v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 148 Tex. 387, 224 S.W.2d 704.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is overruled. The Clerk will notify counsel.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 994 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 994

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, as the ``Staff 
          Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 16, 2015

  Mr. Booker introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, as the ``Staff 
          Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT JOSEPH D'AUGUSTINE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1 Walter Hammond Place in Waldwick, New Jersey, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Joseph D'Augustine Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
[929 NYS2d 353]

#### 2 Macon Street Associates, L.P., Respondent, v Etwin Sealy, Respondent, and Marqueta Durant, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

June 15, 2011

*53APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Marquita Durant,*appellant pro se. *Law Office of Rosenblum & Bianco, LLP,*Rockville Centre *{Joan Rubel*of counsel), for 2 Macon Street Associates, L.E, respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Ordered that the final judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Landlord commenced this holdover summary proceeding alleging that tenants had failed to recertify their income, thereby violating a provision in the low income rider to the lease. Tenant Etwin Sealy failed to appear, and a default final judgment was entered against her. Tenant Marquita Durant (appellant), Sealy’s daughter, appeared, and admitted at trial that she had purposely refused to submit her income recertification forms to landlord because she had intended to thwart landlord’s ability to obtain a tax credit for her unit after landlord had failed to make necessary repairs. Following the nonjury trial, the Civil Court awarded landlord a final judgment of possession and arrears of $3,656, but stayed issuance of the warrant of eviction for 10 days so that appellant and her mother could complete their 2007, 2008 and 2009 recertifications.

In order to receive a low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) pursuant to section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 USC), landlords are “required to keep records for each building with respect to which LIHTC has been allocated or allowed that show for each year . . . (v) [t]he annual income certification and recertification of each tenant . . . [and] (vi) [documentation to support the income certification and recertification made by each tenant” (21 NYCRR 2188.7 [e] [1] [v], [vi]). This documentation may include “a copy of the tenant’s federal income tax return, Forms W-2, or verifications of income from third parties such as employers or state agencies paying unemployment compensation” (21 NYCRR 2188.7 [e] [1] [vi]). A landlord may terminate the tenancy of a rent-stabilized tenant who does not submit adequate income recertifications *()see Pinnacle Bronx W., LLC v Jennings,*29 Misc 3d 61, 62-63 [App Term, 1st Dept 2010]; *cf. New York City Hous. Auth. v McClinton,*184 Misc 2d 818 [App Term, 1st Dept 2000]).

In this case, appellant admitted that she had purposely refused to submit her income recertification forms to landlord. *54Thus, appellant violated a “substantial obligation” of her tenancy, which she “failed to cure . . . after written notice by the owner that the violations cease within 10 days” (9 NYCRR 2524.3 [a]), when she refused to recertify her income, thereby jeopardizing landlord’s tax credit status (see 21 NYCRR 2188.7 [k]).

Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.

Steinhardt, J.E, Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1767

___________________________

Stephen Wayne Norwood

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

John Fox, Interim Warden, FCI - Forrest City

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: December 23, 2015

Filed: January 7, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate Stephen Norwood appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 1

U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought prior-custody credit towards service of his

federal sentence. Upon careful de novo review, see Abdullah v. Hedrick, 392 F.3d

957, 959 (8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that Norwood was not entitled to relief. It is

undisputed that the entire time period at issue was credited against a state sentence

that he was serving (notwithstanding his contention that the state lost “primary”

custody over him at some point). Thus, the time was not eligible for credit against

his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Elwell v. Fisher, 716 F.3d 477, 481

(8th Cir. 2013).

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

______________________________

The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States DistrictJudge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-
Exhibit 32.1



OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson E. Reasor, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 10, 2005



/s/ JACKSON E. REASORJackson E. ReasorPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)




24
Exhibit 35.4



|     |  |                                                                                                           |  | 
|---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084,
8th Floor 401 South Tryon St. Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334 |  | 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2013, by and among GS Mortgage
Securities Corporation II, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer and Certificate Administrator, LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor and U.S. Bank
National Association as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-GC10 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.07 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|                                                     
|LOGO                                                 
|Daniel Bober Executive Vice
PresidentWells Fargo Bank



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD17-10-000]


Agency Operations in the Absence of a Quorum; Notice of 
Termination of Delegation of Further Authority to Staff Due To 
Reestablishment of Quorum

    1. By order issued February 3, 2017, in anticipation of a lack of a 
quorum, the Commission delegated further authority to its staff to take 
certain actions.\1\ Such delegation was effective beginning February 4, 
2017, and in no event was to extend beyond 14 days following the date a 
Commission quorum was reestablished.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Agency Operations in the Absence of a Quorum, 158 FERC 
61,135 (2017).
    \2\ Id. P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Take notice that a Commission quorum was reestablished on August 
10, 2017, and, with the reestablishment of a Commission quorum, the 
Commission's delegation of further authority to its staff accordingly 
terminated on August 24, 2017.

    Dated: August 25, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18537 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P