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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ERICKA L. FLOOD, a/k/a Ericka Lomick,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:10-cr-00124-MOC-2; 3:12-cv-00186-MOC)

Submitted: May 8, 2013 Decided: May 13, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ericka L. Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Kurt William Meyers,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ericka L. Flood seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and 

dismissing her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. 

Although the docketed notice of appeal was received well outside 

the expiration of the appeal period, Flood indicates that she 

previously delivered her notice of appeal to prison officials on 

August 15, 2012, only seven days after the district court 

entered its order and well within the sixty-day appeal period. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Because Flood is incarcerated, the 

notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly 

delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The 

record does not conclusively reveal when Flood delivered the 

notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, 

we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the 

district court to obtain this information from the parties and 

to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack. The record, as supplemented, will 

then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00285

- CR

William C. Brown

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (1356206D )

February 18, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Anne Gardner

_________________ Justice Anne Gardner
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3136 

To extend the program to provide grants for specified energy property in 

lieu of tax credits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 8, 2009 

Mr. WALZ (for himself, Mr. PETERSON, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. 

PERRIELLO, Mr. BOSWELL, Ms. MCCOLLUM, and Mr. RODRIGUEZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend the program to provide grants for specified energy 

property in lieu of tax credits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM TO PROVIDE GRANTS 

4 FOR SPECIFIED ENERGY PROPERTY IN LIEU 

5 OF TAX CREDITS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 1603 of 

7 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 

8 is amended— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3136 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘2009 or 2010’’ both places it 

2 appears and by inserting ‘‘2009, 2010, 2011, or 

3 2012’’, and 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘after 2010’’ in paragraph (2) 

5 and inserting ‘‘after 2012’’. 

6 (b) DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF GRANT APPLICA7 TION.—Subsection (j) of section 1603 of such Act is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘2011’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 1, 2020 s0428

Order 

Clerk

May 1, 2020

160594

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160594

COA: 343225

Monroe CC: 17-243894-FH

ERICK ROSEAN ALLEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 1, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing: (1) whether this Court’s holding in People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549 

(2009), encompasses parolees who are arrested for a new offense but are not subject to a 

parole detainer; if so, (2) whether that part of Idziak’s holding was correctly decided; and 

(3) whether the appellant has established plain error affecting his substantial rights. In 

addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to 

MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page 

numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a supplemental brief 

within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also 

electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix 

filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of 

being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements 

of their application papers.

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense 

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
#### Roger Lee REED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carol HOLINKA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-3334.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 22, 2011.

Roger Lee Reed, Oxford, WI, pro se.

Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

Roger Lee Reed appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking early release from federal prison. We affirm.

Mr. Reed was convicted under Kansas law for committing theft while on probation. The state court imposed a prison sentence of fifty-seven months. Shortly after his state conviction, Mr. Reed pled guilty in federal court to illegal possession of a firearm. The court sentenced him to thirty-six months to run consecutively to his state sentence. On May 31, 2007, while serving his state sentence, Mr. Reed was erroneously transferred to federal custody. Upon discovering this administrative error, federal authorities promptly returned him to Kansas. On April 3, 2009, Mr. Reed completed his state sentence and was transferred back to federal custody to serve out his federal sentence. Time mistakenly spent in federal custody was credited against his state sentence.

On appeal, Mr. Reed makes two arguments for early release. First, he contends his federal sentence actually commenced on May 31, 2007 (not April 3, 2009) when he was erroneously transferred to federal custody. Second, he says he should have received credit against his federal sentence for time served before April 3, 2009. The district court rejected both these arguments. Relying on *Binford v. United States,*436 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006), and *Stroble v. Terrell,*200 Fed.Appx. 811 (10th Cir.2006) (unpublished), the court held that Mr. Reed’s federal sentence commenced on April 3. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). Moreover, it held that no time served before April 3 could be credited against his federal sentence because that time had already been credited against his state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). After reviewing the record ourselves, we cannot disagree with the district court. Accordingly, and for substantially the same reasons given by the court in its thorough order, we affirm the denial of Mr. Reed’s habeas petition and deny his “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Summary Judgment Rule 56(a — g).”

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3150 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to use section 32 of the Act of 

August 24, 1935, to provide compensation to certain poultry producers 

whose poultry production contracts were terminated or not renewed because of the closure of poultry processing plants and other cost cutting 

measures undertaken by a poultry processing company in bankruptcy 

protection. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2009 

Mr. ETHERIDGE (for himself, Mr. ROSS, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. 

HOLDEN, and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to use section 32 

of the Act of August 24, 1935, to provide compensation 

to certain poultry producers whose poultry production 

contracts were terminated or not renewed because of 

the closure of poultry processing plants and other cost 

cutting measures undertaken by a poultry processing 

company in bankruptcy protection. 

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


jbell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3150 IH

1 SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE 

2 TO LOSS OF POULTRY PRODUCTION CON3 TRACTS WITH BANKRUPT POULTRY PROC4 ESSING COMPANY. 

5 Using not more than $50,000,000 of amounts in the 

6 fund established under section 32 of the Act of August 

7 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), and the authority provided by 

8 paragraph (3) of the second sentence of such section, the 

9 Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Farm Service 

10 Agency, shall provide compensation to poultry producers 

11 whose poultry production contracts were terminated or not 

12 renewed during the period beginning on July 1, 2008, and 

13 ending on the date of the enactment of this Act, because 

14 of the closure of poultry processing plants and other cost 

15 cutting measures undertaken by a poultry processing com16 pany in bankruptcy protection. A poultry producer seeking 

17 compensation under this section shall be required to docu18 ment to the satisfaction of the Secretary the termination 

19 or non-renewal of a production contract and the subse20 quent economic losses incurred by the producer as a result 

21 of the termination or non-renewal of the contract by the 

22 poultry processing company. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### ROBERT PAWLOWSKI, ADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF STEVEN PAWLOWSKI), ET AL. *v.*DELTA SIGMA PHI FRATERNITY, INC., ET AL.

(AC 32862)

Lavine, Alvord and Bear, Js.

Argued November 29, 2011

officially released January 3, 2012

*Richard L. Newman,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Patricia M. Shepard,*with whom, on the brief, was *Lawrence H. Adler,*for the appellee (defendant Conor Melville).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Robert Pawlowski and Joan Pawlowski, administrators of the estate of Steven *817Pawlowski, appeal from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Conor Melville.1 On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the court improperly found that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding Melville’s alleged negligence. The plaintiffs claim that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to bring the case before a jury on the issue of whether Melville was a social host who purveyed alcohol to the plaintiffs’ decedent. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Whether Melville owed a duty to the plaintiffs’ decedent was a question of law properly decided on summary judgment. *Vitale*v. *Kowal,*101 Conn. App. 691, 698-99, 923 A.2d 778, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 904, 931 A.2d 268 (2007). In ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the court issued a memorandum of decision, which is a concise and thoughtful statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issue. See *Pawlowski*v. *Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity, Inc.,*52 Conn. Sup. 186, 35 A.3d 410 (2010). We therefore adopt the decision of the trial court as our own. It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the discussion contained therein. See *Norfolk & Dedham Mutual Fire Ins. Co.*v. *Wysocki,*243 Conn. 239, 241, 702 A.2d 638 (1997).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

 The original complaint named eleven defendants. Melville is the only defendant relevant to this appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48306-48307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 10165]


Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported 
for Exhibition Determinations: ``The Arch of Titus--From Jerusalem to 
Rome, and Back'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I 
hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition 
``The Arch of Titus--from Jerusalem to Rome, and Back,'' imported from 
abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Yeshiva 
University Museum, New York, New York, from on

[[Page 48307]]

or about October 27, 2017, until on or about January 14, 2018, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Elliot Chiu in the Office of the 
Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; 
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed9e888e99848283dfd9d8d4ad9e998c9988c38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7c4d2d4c3ded8d98583828ef7c4c3d6c3d299d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>). The mailing address is U.S. Department 
of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The foregoing determinations were made 
pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of 
December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
determinations be published in the Federal Register.

Alyson Grunder,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2017-22409 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM ADVANCED
BUSINSESS SCIENCES,  INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED  CONDENSED  BALANCE SHEETS  CONTAINED IN ITS QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY  PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                             428
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      69,147
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        706,215
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   829,230
<PP&E>                             1,048,326
<DEPRECIATION>                     590,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,390,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              5,067,400
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           11,197
<OTHER-SE>                         8,866,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,390,907
<SALES>                            124,909
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   124,909
<CGS>                              84,384
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   3,353,983
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 217,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (3,533,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (3,533,678)
<EPS-BASIC>                      (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.31)


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40630 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ISMAEL GARCIA

- GARCIA, also known as Isamael Garcia

- Garcia , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12

- CR

- 1436

- 1

Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ismael Garcia

Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia

- Garcia h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 17, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40630 Document: 00512666289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014No. 13

- 40630

nonfriv olous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40630 Document: 00512666289 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2014
Exhibit
32.1

STATEMENT
FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The
undersigned, Charles M. Sprock, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Rome Bancorp, Inc. (the Company).
This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 (the Report).

By
execution of this statement, I certify that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
 Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and                                                              
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly
 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
 operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
 Report.

This
statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this
statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement be
deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|                  |                                       | 
|----------------- | ------------------------------------- | 
|Date: May 8, 2009 | /s/ Charles M. Sprock                 | 
|                  |                                       | 
|                  | Charles M. Sprock                     | 
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer | 

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
                                                                    ------------



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Valley Industries, Inc. and
 Z Leasing Company:



We hereby consent to the inclusion of our report, dated June 17, 1996, with
respect to the combined statements of earnings, stockholders' and partners'
equity, and cash flows of Valley Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries and Z Leasing
Company (A General Partnership) for the year ended January 31, 1996, in the Form
10-K/A-1 for the year ended June 27, 1998 of U.S. Foodservice.  We also 
consent to the incorporation by reference of such report in the registration
statements on Form S-3 (333-59785) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-88140, 33-88142, 
33-88144, 33-88146, 33-81011, 333-37359, 333-43185 and 333-47759) of U.S.
Foodservice.



KPMG LLP

Baltimore, Maryland
January 12, 1999