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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2428

KIMBERLY T. SPENCE, f/k/a Kimberly S. Willis,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARL J. WILLIS, II,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

WELLSTAR MEDICAL GROUP PEDIATRIC & ADOLESCENT CENTER; 

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CARDINALS, of Atlanta; ROMAN CATHOLIC 

ARCHDIOCESE, of Atlanta; ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC 

SCHOOL AND LEADERSHIP; UNITED METHODIST CHURCH BISHOPS; 

BEN HILL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH; BEN HILL CHRISTIAN 

ACADEMY; WOODWARD ACADEMY; GEORGIA FARM BUREAU 

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; GEORGIA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY; CREATE-A-LOAD KENNESAW; REUNION 

PLACE SUBDIVISION; PAT ASTRIN; RE/MAX OF GEORGIA; PAT ASTRIN 

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC; CHELSEA BYNUM; MIA NICOLE 

SPENCER; MAID OF THE MIST CORPORATION; SEAN M. BOUSHIE; 

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.
2

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00272-D)

Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: May 4, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimberly T. Spence, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Kimberly T. Spence seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s memorandum and 

recommendation recommending that Spence’s civil action be dismissed as frivolous. 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

memorandum and recommendation Spence seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), (c)(1) (2012); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and deny Spence’s pending 

motions as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NO. 07-08-0175-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 23, 2009

______________________________

EDWIN DEGRAFF, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 64 DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; TH

NO. B16020-0505; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

In one issue, appellant Edwin DeGraff appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual

assault of a child by challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence. We find the

evidence sufficient and affirm the judgment. 

The pertinent standard of review is explained in Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) and its progeny. We refer the parties to them. 
2

Next, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault by intentionally and

knowingly causing the penetration of the female sexual organ of his nine-year-old daughter

by his finger. See TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. 22.021(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Appellant

attacks the sufficiency of the evidence illustrating that he penetrated the complainant with

his finger. Furthermore, though he admitted that he touched the child’s vagina with his

hand and acknowledged the impropriety of that act, he denied having committed a criminal

offense. Yet, in that statement he also said that the tips of two fingers “touch[ed] the

interior part of the outside lips but didn’t go inside of them.” So too did he draw a picture

illustrating the relationship between those two fingers and the interior part of the labia

touched.

We have held that the slightest penetration is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Green v. State, 209 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2006, pet. ref’d). Furthermore,

penetration includes pushing aside and reaching beneath a natural fold of skin into an area

of the body not usually exposed even when one is naked. Vernon v. State, 841 S.W.2d

407, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Appellant’s statement and his drawing are sufficient for

a rational trier of fact to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that penetration occurred.

That finding is neither against the great weight of the evidence or otherwise manifestly

unjust. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2422 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 259
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2422

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           December 15, 2011

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 45 Bay Street, Suite 2, in Staten Island, New York, as the 
                 ``Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SERGEANT ANGEL MENDEZ POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 45 Bay Street, Suite 2, in Staten Island, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office''.
    (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 ``Sergeant 
Angel Mendez Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 259

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2422

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
     at 45 Bay Street, Suite 2, in Staten Island, New York, as the 
                 ``Sergeant Angel Mendez Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 15, 2011

                       Reported without amendment
```
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 11, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.

Broward and Palm Beach Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-20189 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### BING LI, a/k/a Li Bin, a/k/a Bin Li, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 07-5466-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 20, 2008.

*60Yan Wang, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Barry J. Pettinato, Assistant Director; Robbin K. Blaya, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. ROBERT A. KAZTMANN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Bin Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of a November 7, 2007 order of the BIA affirming the February 6, 2006 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Robert D. Weisel denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *In re Bin Li,*No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 7, 2007), *aff'g*No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City, Feb. 6, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We need not reach the merits of the agency’s adverse credibility determination, because Li failed to challenge that determination sufficiently in his brief to this Court. Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal. See *Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,*426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1, 545 n. 7 (2d Cir.2005). Li’s counseled brief fails to address two of the three findings made by the IJ in support of his adverse credibility determination. Instead, Li challenges only the IJ’s finding that it was implausible for the authorities not to have questioned his parents regarding the Falun Gong materials found in their home. That argument is insufficient to challenge the entirety of the agency’s adverse credibility determination where, even if Li’s only argument had merit (a finding we do not make), we would deny the petition on the strength of the unchallenged findings.* Because addressing the unchallenged aspects of the agency’s adverse credibility determination does not appear to be necessary to avoid manifest injustice, we deem any such arguments abandoned. *See id.*Moreover, because the adverse credibility determination was dispositive of Li’s application for relief, we deny the petition for review.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, the pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot.

*

 We note that the IJ properly observed that Li testified inconsistently regarding whether he fled from police while he was passing out materials. *See, e.g., Majidi v. Gonzales,*430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005).
OFFICE OF TNE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
he eormyea mre +0 oar priraner, 

- ._ ._ 

Artlola 1029. 

part aa fol&w*a, 1 

"2. lp0r 

or aappia* l . 

mile for rash 

6a in g6:ng to the pus6 et *meet; aaa for ooavoylng oaah primmer to jail) he ehhrll remin 

ta m eU68g o pror fdin r d l uM ir i8io4 n . 

03 . . . 

î . . . 
Bon. a. A. Bodg@m* Qage s 

Unbar the oonetructian pl8aad upon tha ?orsgehg mileage 

pr~viclionm or Artlale 10089, mupn 

thim Deparwmt, the o??iaer im 

*od ~r8rlously ibUm Or 

a i lo*ed ?iva oaatr pu a118 

r 

inig and a tote1 or twenty-el@t ouitm pu rtl* rstur~~ing 

rourtoen oantcr for the oiilaar atid iourteen aantm for tb* 

7, 

rianor) for oaoh &fro motually ma4 a8aemmarIly trsveled. 

binford T. iroblamon, 844 5. 3. &O?) 

Artlola lOe0, aoa0 of Cririnal~Pmeaduro, roabm In part 

a@ tollarm: 

*Shrrrirrr ati Conrtab188 meming proaar8 and 

8ttradlag any eraratning oeurt in the exaalnation 

of any rsloay oaae, 8hll be wtftld to muah ?oa8 

am are fir04 by lmw for mIml&r 8onio88 In mlmdmwaor oamom la oounty court to bo aid b tbo 

&ate, not to eta006 Tbar aad Loo/l00 f 44.08 f Do& 

trm In my on* same, and milugo aOtu8lly ca4 

neaommadlp traralrb in a;oiu to the pleor a? 

erramt, and ?Or 4enrrtin& the pri8OaU or prhonl m to jell a8 provide4 in ArtiblLu 1089 aBd 10.090, 

Ccde 0r Crlrtfml &oa*dur4, . . ." 

The oounty o??Ial~l8 o? ~ilU8m8on County are oomp8mate4 

on an azmual l a la berim r y 8ne tha proaiaat o??ieer~ uo amQ~##t86 011 a fw b8818. 

Am the mbui?? im aompen.ate4 on ma aaawl m&lazy bed@, ho 

in mati tlml LO RO fw rrtrrtmoeru rolmtlr~ to the above moattone6 Qw8tioa8. 3eotfon S, Article SOlPe, Vermm~m Amotatod 

Civil statut*mr 

Ylth rs;teronam to the ire8 that the oonrtablo rho l8 001. 

pwmatea on a roe ba.828 

aentionea gUomtio5ll, we 

I8 ontitlod to, rolatlm to the 8bore . 

*amwu your lnpufry em r0iLa8r 

1. Tha fonmtable I8 *atILl* to'flra sanL8 per mile _ - 

going to Lhe plwe or l re8L In a raMmy aaim. 

2. ina returning the prironor in a telony 6858, tho 

ocnstablo 1~ entitled to fourtaaa omit@ for hilareL? 8nd tourtern oentm additiorial icr a~ prtmenu, a tot81 0r twenty-mtght 

aentr for convrylng the prlacner to jaf2. Pmvlded, however, 

the conatable is traveling otbarwi88 t&m by nilroa6. 
SYS 

9 ATTORNEY GENXRAL Or' TEXAS
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying  Quarterly Report of Consortium Service
Management Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June
30, 2006 (the "Report"),  I, Donald S. Robbins,  Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  August 21, 2006

                                                          /s/ Donald S. Robbins
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Donald S. Robbins
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.














                                                                      Exhibit 32
Exhibit 31.3



ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14
OR 15D-14 OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, David K. Jones, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
period ended December 31, 2017 of Iconix Brand Group, Inc.; and



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.



|Date: April 30, 2018                                                        | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                            | 
|/s/ David K. Jones                                                          | 
|David K. Jones
        Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Order entered April 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01261-CV

EX PARTE MICHAEL GEROD MCGREGOR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. X-13-1459-W

ORDER

The record before us reflects this appeal could be either (1) an ordinary appeal, filed 

within the fifteen-day extension period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 but 

without the required extension motion; or (2) a restricted appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 30 but with a deficient notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(d)(7) & 30 (together 

setting forth requirements for restricted appeal); 26.1 (setting deadline for filing ordinary 

appeal); 26.3 (outlining procedure for obtaining extension). Accordingly, by letter dated April 1, 

2015, appellant was directed to file either (1) a motion to extend time to file notice of ordinary 

appeal or (2) an amended notice of appeal reflecting he is pursuing a restricted appeal. Rather 

than filing either an extension motion or an amended notice of appeal, however, appellant, who 

is proceeding pro se, has filed both. He also has filed a “motion for leave to file [both].” 
An appeal cannot proceed as both an ordinary appeal and a restricted appeal. See 

generally id. 25.1, 26.1, 30. Because the standard of appellate review in a restricted appeal is 

more limited than the standard in an ordinary appeal, we GRANT the motion to permit late 

filing of notice of ordinary appeal and DENY as moot the other filings. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; 

Champion v. Estlow, 2015 WL 513274, 03-14-00016-CV *1 (Tex. App.-–Austin 2015, pet. 

filed); Davenport v. Scheble, 201 S.W.3d 188, 193 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied). We 

deem the notice of appeal filed June 7, 2014 timely for jurisdictional purposes. 

We note the clerk’s record has been filed. We further note the reporter has informed the 

Court that no reporter’s record exists of the trial court proceedings. Accordingly, we ORDER 

appellant to file his brief on the merits no later than June 1, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6.

 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and 
the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services 
Office, CDC, pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463.

    Name of Committee: Safety and Occupational Health Study Section 
(SOHSS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH).
    Date: October 31-November 1, 2017.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., CST.
    Place: The Wit Hotel, 201 North State Street, Chicago, Illinois 
60601.
    Agenda: The meeting will convene to address matters related to 
the conduct of Study Section business and for the study section to 
consider safety and occupational health-related grant applications.
    For Further Information Contact: Price Connor, Ph.D., NIOSH 
Health Scientist, CDC 2400 Executive Parkway, Atlanta, Georgia 
30345, (404) 498-2511, spc3@cdc.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017-19500 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
EXHIBIT 23a

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in Registration  Statement Number
33-66826 (dated August 2, 1993 on Form S-8 ), Number 33-78546 (dated May 2, 1994
on Form S-8), Number 33-71416 (Post-Effective Amendment No.3 to Form S-1 on Form
S-3 dated May 16,  1995),  Number  33-95432  (dated August 4, 1995 on Form S-8),
Number 333-1748 (dated March 28, 1996 on Form S-3) and Number  333-19471  (dated
January 9, 1997 on Form S-3) of DynaGen,  Inc. of our report dated  February 14,
1997,  except  for Note 14 as to which the date is March 7, 1997,  appearing  in
DynaGen, Inc.'s Transition Report on Form 10-K for the six months ended December
31, 1996.



                                             WOLF & COMPANY, P.C.




Boston, Massachusetts
April 29, 1997