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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1635

To amend the Federal employee compensation provisions of title 5, United

States Code, to provide benefits for a disability involving the large intestine.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 1, 1993

Mr. STARK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Education and Labor

A BILL

To amend the Federal employee compensation provisions of

title 5, United States Code, to provide benefits for a

disability involving the large intestine.

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPENSATION.

4 Section 8107(c) of title 5, United States Code, is

5 amended by redesignating paragraph (22) as paragraph

6 (23) and by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:

7 ‘‘(22) For permanent loss or loss of use of the

8 large intestine, including the recto-sigmoid, proper

9 and equitable compensation for such period as pre10 scribed by the Secretary by regulation.’’.
2

•HR 1635 IH

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6894

STANLEY EARL CORBETT, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES HENRY CANDELARIO; CURTIS MURRAY; JAMIE EMMANUEL 

HOLMES; OFFICER MIZZELLE; ISLAM AYESH; OFFICER PERKINS; MR. 

HATLEY; OFFICER FISHER; OFFICER HALE; OFFICER GRANDY,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:19-ct-03361-M)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6894 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Earl Corbett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 

motions for default judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. 

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

order Corbett seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6894 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*July 25, 2014*

[Cite as *07/25/2014 Case Announcements #2,*2014-Ohio-3270.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2014-1260.

#### State v. DeWitt.

Henry App. No. 7-14-01. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.

Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for stay of the judgment of the Third District Court of Appeals, it is ordered by the court that the motion is denied.
{"agency":"FMSHRC","generated":"2021-04-27 13:49:59","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMSHRC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["9"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["8"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["1"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q2"}
****

# Work ZONE SAFETY general pitch email: California

**POTENTIAL SUBJECT LINE: Improving Work Zone Safety with State-Wide Outreach Campaign**

Hello, **[Name of Reporter/Producer]**

The **[Organization]** would like to pursue a potential **[TV Station/Publication] [segment/story]** to share resources and raise awareness for a work zone safety campaign which focuses on reminding commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers to plan their routes, stay alert, and slow down as they approach California work zones. This initiative is part of a national effort led by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the *Our Roads, Our Safety**®* campaign.

**Here’s why the Work Zone Safety Outreach Campaign is so critical in California:**

· California has a large and complex roadway system with over 175,589 miles of public roads. This roadway system encompasses diverse environments and provides mobility for nearly 27 million licensed drivers and millions of pedestrians and bicyclists.

· California has the fifth largest economy in the world and these public roads are the foundation on which California reliably moves people and goods from one place to another.

· From 2012-2021 California has seen 146 fatal work zone crashes involving a CMV.

· Between 2008 and 2017, 1,893 fatal or serious injury crashes occurred in a work zone inCalifornia. These crashes resulted in 575 fatalities and 1,634 serious injuries. Work zonecrashes represent 1.5% of fatal or serious injury crashes, 1.8% of all traffic fatalities, and1.4% of all serious injuries over the same period.

· More recently in 2020, 15% of fatal work zone crashes in California involved a CMV.  

Through a potential [**segment/feature story**], we welcome the opportunity to share these safety resources/tips and remind **[TV Station/Publication]****[readers/viewers/listeners]**to stay alert and share the road safely, especially when driving through work zones. 

I’d be happy to discuss the topic further via phone and connect you with one of our spokespeople for comment. 

For more information on active work zones in the state, please see below my signature line; and for resources, check out the campaign webpage, here: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ourroads/work-zone-safety-shareable-material

Looking forward to speaking with you.

Best,

**[Contact name]**

**[Contact phone number]**

**[Contact email address]**

**[Website, Facebook and/or Twitter presence]**

FMCSA is amplifying work zone safety messages through outlets such as billboards and audio ads, reaching drivers traveling through the following work zones areas:

· **Northern California**: Heavy construction zones in San Francisco and San Jose area

· State Route (SR) 1/US 101: North and south bound throughout the state

· SR 99: North and south bound throughout the state

· **Greater Los Angeles area**: I-5, I-10, I-15, I-110, I-405, and many others

###

1

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet and Statement of Income and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000805297
<NAME> KRUPP INSURED PLUS II LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       7,921,270
<SECURITIES>                               193,001,695<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,604,301
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,025,153<F2>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             207,552,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,900
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   206,978,183<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                     555,336<F4>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               207,552,419
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,855,280<F5>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,524,068<F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,331,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,331,212
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                12,331,212
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F7>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F7>
<FN>
<F1>Includes Participating Insured Mortgages ("PIMs") of $151,717,926 and
Mortgage-Backed Securities ("MBS") of $41,283,769.
<F2>Includes prepaid acquisition fees and expenses of $12,168,877 net of
accumulated amortization of $8,279,914 and prepaid participation servicing fees
of $3,765,596 net of accumulated amortization of $2,629,406
<F3>Represents total equity of General Partners and Limited Partners.  General
Partners deficit of ($217,867) and Limited Partners equity of $207,196,050.
<F4>Unrealized gain on MBS
<F5>Represents interest income on investments in mortgages and cash
<F6>Includes $1,746,476 of amortization of prepaid fees and expenses.
<F7>Net income allocated $369,936 to the General Partners and $11,961,276 to the
Limited Partners.  Average net income per Limited Partner interest is $.82 on
14,655,512 Limited Partner interests outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus BARRERA-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12845

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

*414Laura Thomas Rivero, Evelyn Baltodano-Sheehan, Dawn Bowen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wifredo A. Ferrer, U.S. Attorney, Sean Thomas McLaughlin, Christopher Párente, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Deric Zacea, Cabrera and Zacea, L.L.P., Miramar, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HULL, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jesus Barrera-Avila appeals the 322-month total sentence he received following his conviction for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats or violence by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). On appeal, Barrera-Avila argues that the district court erred by applying the five-year consecutive mandatory minimum sentence under § 924(c) in addition to the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence he received for the § 846 offense.

We review questions of statutory interpretation *de novo. United States v. Segarra,*582 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 633, 178 L.Ed.2d 509 (2010). Section 924(c) provides that

> [e]xcept to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime ..., uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years.

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). In *Segarra,*we rejected the argument that the five-year consecutive mandatory minimum could not be applied when the defendant faced a greater mandatory sentence for a drug *415offense.1582 F.3d at 1273.

Because *Segarra*forecloses Barrera-Avila’s argument, the district court properly applied § 924(e)’s five-year consecutive mandatory minimum sentence.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The Supreme Court recently affirmed our interpretation of the "except” clause. *See Abbott v. United States,*562 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 18, 178 L.Ed.2d 348 (2010).
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of FirstCity Financial Corporation (the Company), does
hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that: The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the
Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. Date: August 13, 2004
    
    /s/
    James T. SartainJames T. SartainChief Executive Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form
10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part
of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 22, 2014

No. 04-14-00013-CV

IN THE INT OF AJL, ARL, AAR, AND BNG,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PA-02031

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. Because this 

is an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, no further extensions of time will be 

granted. The appellee’s brief is due on August 15, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of July, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.79


 


ASSIGNMENT


 


This Assignment is made
as of the 25th day of July, 2006 by INLAND REAL ESTATE
ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation (“Assignor”) to and for
the benefit of MB Herndon, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company (“Assignee”).


 


Assignor does hereby
sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto Assignee all of its right,
title and interest as Buyer under into that Agreement for Purchase and Sale (Dulles
Executive Plaza) dated as of July 06, 2006, as amended and entered into by Valley
View Associates Limited Partnership, a North Carolina limited partnership, as
Seller, and Assignor, as Buyer (collectively, the “Agreement”), for the sale
and purchase of the property described by the Agreement, located in Fairfax
County, Virginia.


 


Assignor represents and
warrants that it is the Buyer under the Agreement, and that it has not sold,
assigned, transferred, or encumbered such interest in any way to any other
person or entity. By acceptance hereof, Assignee accepts the foregoing assignment
and agrees, from and after the date hereof, to (i) perform all of the
obligations of Buyer under the Agreement, and (ii) indemnify, defend, protect
and hold Assignor harmless from and against all claims and liabilities arising
under the Agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Assignor and Assignee have executed this instrument as of the date first
written above.


 


	
   

  	
  ASSIGNOR:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  INLAND REAL ESTATE
  ACQUISITIONS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
  an Illinois corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  G. Joseph Cosenza

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  As Its:

  	
  President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  ASSIGNEE:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  MB HERNDON, L.L.C.,

  
	
   

  	
  a Delaware limited
  liability company

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: Minto Builders
  (Florida), Inc.,

  
	
   

  	
  a Florida corporation, its
  sole member

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Charles Benvenuto

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  C. Benvenuto

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  Authorized
  Agent
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00657- CV
Chris Traylor, as Executive C om m ission er of the Texas Health and Hu m an Services Com m ission ; and the Texas Health and Human Servic es Com m ission , Appellan ts
v. Diana D., as next friend of KD, a child; Kar en G., as nextfriend of T G and ZM , children; Guadalup e P ., as next friend of LP, a c hild ; Sally L., as next friend of CH, a child; Dena D., as next friend of

BD, a child ; OCI Acquisition, L LC d/b /a Care Options f or K ids; Connectc are Solutions, L LC d/b /a Connectcar e Therapy for Kids; Atlas P ediatric Therapy

Consul tants LLC; and Pathfin der P ediatric Hom e Car e, Inc., Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 200 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 5-0 0326 3, H ONO RAB LE TIM SULAK , JUDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R P ER CURIAM

On April 21, 2016, this Court issued its opinion and judgme nt, dismiss ing appellee s’ claims asser

ted ag ainst the Texas Hea lth an d Hu man Service s Commi ssion and its Ex ecutive Commi ssioner for lack of jurisdiction. We further reve rsed and vacated the trial court’s temporar y injunction and dismiss ed as moot appellants’ rule 24.4 motion to vacate counter -super sedea s order or, in the alternative, incre ase counter -super sedea s bond. See Tex
. R
. App. P. 24.4. On J une 1, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court g rante d appellee s’ unopposed motion to extend time to file
a petition fo r re v i ew from this Court’s opinion and judgme nt with the Texas Supreme Court and assig ned ca

use number 16- 0405 to the appea l.On J une 15, 2016, appellee s filed an emer g ency motion for writ of enfor ceme nt with

this Court, reque sting that this Court issue an order ref erring an enfor ceme nt proce eding to the trial court pursua

nt to Rul e 29.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure
. SeeTex. R. App. P . 29.4. On t his Court’s reque st, appellants have filed a response. The parties joi n issue with the effec t of this Court’s ruling in our opini on on appellants’ r ule 24.4 motion. Neither pa rty , howeve r, filed a
m o t i on for rehea

ring , and the appea l is now pending before the Texas Supreme Court. Ru l e 2 9
. 4 expressly provides that “only the appellate court in which the appea l is pendi n g m ay enfor ce the [i nterlocutory] order .” Tex
. R
. Ap p . P. 29.4. Thus, beca use t he appeal is not pending befor e thi s Court, we deny

appellee s’ emer g ency

motion for writ of enf

orce ment. It is ordere d J une 20, 2016.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield

2
#### SHEIL *et al.*v. WINTERS.

No. 6940.

Opinion Filed February 2, 1915.

(146 Pac. 220.)

APPEAL AND ERRiO.R — Frivolous Appeal — Dismissal. Appeal dismissed upon the ground that it is manifestly and palpably frivolous and without merit.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from District Court, Texas County; W. C.*Crow, *Judge.*

Action by Maggie Winters against J. C. Sheil and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants brings error.

Dismissed.

*Gleason &*Breslin, for plaintiffs in error.

*R. L.*Cooke, for'defendant in error.

KANE, C. J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the appeal upon the ground, among others, that “this appeal is manifestly frivolous, without merit, and intended only to delay.” Immediately following this ground for dismissal by way of argument, counsel for the movant continues:

> “The record in this court shows that the plaintiffs in error, defendants below, were either duly, served with summons or waived the issuance and service of summons; that the petition of the defendant in error, plaintiff below, set up as a cause of action a certain promissory note, * * * made and executed by J. C. Sheil, defendant below, and delivered to the plaintiff below, payable to order of Maggie Winters on September 24, 1913, and a certain real estate mortgage executed by the said J. C. Sheii to secure ■ the payment of said note, on the following described *526real estate, ta wit, * * * and asked for a personal judgment against the said J. C. Sheil for the amount of the note with interest and the costs of the suit and for a foreclosure of the mortgage. The record further shows that the defendants below defaulted and made no' defense whatever, and that no motion for a new trial has been made, and that there is no defense to the action.”

This motion and argument was served upon counsel for plain"tiffs in error, but no response was made thereto. If what counsel for movant says in regard to the record is correct — and not being disputed, and for the purpose of this motion we will assume that it is — the cause clearly falls within the rule laid down by this court in the cases of *Kirkland v. Trezevant,*38 Okla. 445, 134 Pac. 1198, *Skirvin v. Goldstein,*40 Okla. 315, 137 Pac. 1176, and *Skirvin v. Bass Fur. & Car. Co.,*43 Okla. 440, 143 Pac. 190, wherein it is said:

> “This court has the inherent power, and it is its duty, to dismiss an appeal which is manifestly and palpably frivolous and without merit.”

The motion to dismiss is sustained upon the authority of the cases cited.

All the Justices concur.