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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6276

SILAS MOBLEY, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

v. 

ANNE M. TOMPKINS; ROBERT CONRAD, JR.; RICHARD CULLER; 

DAVID A. KEESLER; JAMES BRYANT, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00212-MJH) 

Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Silas Junior Mobley, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, 

for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Silas Mobley appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2006) his civil action

challenging his federal convictions and seeking damages and 

injunctive relief. The district court properly dismissed the 

action because Mobley has not shown that his convictions have

been overturned or called into question. See Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (holding that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2006) suit for monetary damages is barred if prevailing in the 

action would necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the 

unlawfulness of his conviction); Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 

375 (4th Cir. 2002) (applying Heck to claims for injunctive 

relief), abrogated on other grounds by Skinner v. Switzer, 

131 S. Ct. 1289, 1298-1300 (2011); Clemente v. Allen, 120 F.3d 

703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (stating that the 

rationale in Heck applies to actions under Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). 

However, we modify the district court’s order to 

reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Mobley’s 

ability to re-file his claims if his federal convictions are 

overturned or called into question by the appropriate court and 

affirm the order as modified. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 
3

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 11 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 11

Electing Frank Larkin as Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2015

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Electing Frank Larkin as Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

    Resolved, That Frank J. Larkin of Maryland be, and he is hereby, 
elected Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7366

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND FRETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-02-1381; CA-04-1133-3-17) Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 11, 2005 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Frett, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Hunter Young, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Raymond Frett, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Frett 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* 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 December 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60548 Summary Calendar

JUANA HORNBURG, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 128 445

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juana Medina Hornburg appeals the denial of her application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. The immigration judge (IJ) determined that Hornburg had not made the requisite showing that her United States citizen daughter would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See § 1229b(b)(1)(D). A single member of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s opinion, thereby making the IJ’s

decision the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1No. 05-60548 -2- (e)(4). Where the BIA affirms the IJ decision without opinion, this court reviews the IJ’s decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 831-32 (5th Cir. 2003). To the extent that Hornburg challenges the IJ’s discretionary determination that she had not made the requisite showing under § 1229b(b)(1)(D), this court is without jurisdiction to hear her petition. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (ii); Rueda v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). Hornburg also challenges the BIA’s application of its summary affirmance procedures to her case, arguing that the procedure violated her due process rights and that her appeal did not satisfy the requirements for employing that procedure enumerated in § 1003.1(e)(4), (e)(6). This court has previously held the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures constitutional. Soadjede , 324 F.3d at 832-33. The IJ’s decision met the criteria for summary affirmance pursuant to § 1003.1(e). Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at June 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Operations
for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          38,534
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,946
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,480
<PP&E>                                       2,029,769
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,607,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 540,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     540,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   540,387
<SALES>                                        150,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,331
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,796
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                114,535
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            114,535
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   114,535
<EPS-BASIC>                                      18.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    18.73


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SARASOTA ESTATE & JEWELRY ) BUYERS, INC.; HAIEL A. SUWAITY; ) ABED SUWAITY; and AKMS ) INTERNATIONAL CORP., ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-6025 ) GEORGE KANE and AMY KANE, ) ) Appellees. ) )

Opinion filed February 20, 2015.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Charles E. Williams, Judge.

Arnold D. Levine and Robert H. MacKenzie of Arnold D. Levine & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

Robert E. Messick and Mark C. Dungan of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm, Furen & Ginsburg, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Sarasota Estate & Jewelry Buyers, Inc. ("Sarasota Estate") and Haiel A.

Suwaity, Abed Suwaity, and AKMS International Corporation (coll ectively "the

Suwaitys") appeal a judgment following violation of a settlemen t agreement. The record- 2 - does not demonstrate that the Suwaitys were served with the Ver ified Motion for Entry

of Final Judgment or the Notice of Hearing upon the Verified Mo tion; the record reflects

service as to Sarasota Estate. Because the record does not dem onstrate that the

Suwaitys were served with legally sufficient notice, we are com pelled to conclude the

Suwaitys were denied due process of law by having judgment ente red against them.

Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings as to these parties.

See Am. Capital Network v. Command Credit Corp., 707 So. 2d 874 , 875 (Fla. 4th DCA

1998) (citing Special's Trading Co. v. Int'l Consumer Corp., 70 1 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 4th

DCA 1997)). We affirm the remain ing issue without comment.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part as to Haiel and Abed Suw aity and

AKMS International Corp.; affirmed as to Sarasota Estate and Je welry Buyers, Inc.

CASANUEVA and CRENSHA W, JJ., and SABELLA, CHRISTOPHER C., ASSOC IATE JUDGE, Concur.
_____________

No. 96-2610MN

_____________

Glen Tschida, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

County of Ramsey, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: February 14, 1997

 Filed: March 5, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Glen Tschida appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary

judgment in this disability-based employment discrimination action.

Essentially, the district court decided that Tschida’s employment was

terminated before the effective date of the Americans with Disabilities Act

and that Tschida failed to prove he was qualified for any of the other

positions for which he applied. Having reviewed the record and the

materials submitted by the parties, we conclude the district court’s

decision is clearly correct. We decline to address the mixed-motive

argument that Tschida raises for the first time on appeal. Finally, based

on Tschida’s failure to invoke the protection of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(f), we reject his contention that the district court

improperly granted summary judgment before Tschida had an opportunity to

complete discovery. Finding no reversible error, we affirm for the reasons

stated in the district court’s order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Jeffrey T. Slovin, certify that: 1.
I have reviewed
this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Schick Technologies, Inc.;  2.
Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;  3.
Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in the report;  4.
The registrants
other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;  b)
evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and  c)
disclosed in
this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
The registrants
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent function):  a)
all significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and  b)
any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.  Date: February 2, 2006 /S/ Jeffrey T. Slovin

[Signature]
Chief Executive Officer   15
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42879-42880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Pricing for the 2017 American Liberty 225th Anniversary Silver 
Four-Medal Set

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Mint is announcing the price of the 2017 
American Liberty 225th Anniversary Silver Four-Medal Set. Each set will 
be priced at $199.95.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina McDow, Marketing Specialist, 
Numismatic and Bullion Directorate; United States Mint; 801 9th Street 
NW., Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-8495.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111(a)(2).


[[Page 42880]]


    Dated: September 7, 2017.
David Motl,
Acting Deputy Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2017-19316 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 10, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, October 10, 2017, at 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: September 1, 2017.

Antoinette Ross,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2017-19191 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19136]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Notice of Termination; 10338 North Georgia Bank; Watkinsville, 
Georgia

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 
10338 North Georgia Bank, Watkinsville, Georgia (Receiver) has been 
authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership 
estate of North Georgia Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has 
made all dividend distributions required by law.
    The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-
Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all 
documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which 
FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but 
not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, 
assignments and deeds.
    Effective September 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been 
terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has 
ceased to exist as a legal entity.

    Dated: September 6, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19136 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
```
Exhibit 32.1


        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In  connection  with the filing of Zunicom,  Inc. and  Subsidiary  (the
"Company")  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30,
2009 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),I,  William Tan,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C.
(SS) 1350, as enacted 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 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,


/s/ William Tan
--------------------
William Tan
President and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)

November 13, 2009


























                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1