alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Torrey JOSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-2295.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2014.

Decided: April 11, 2014.

Torrey Josey, Appellant Pro Se. Danny Michael Henthorne, Littler Mendelson PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Torrey Josey appeals the district court’s amended order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying Josey’s motion for default judgment,* the magistrate judge’s oral order *210denying Josey’s motions for subpoenas, and the district court’s order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Josey’s employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and hostile work environment claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Josey leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Josey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.,*No. 0:11-02993-CMC, 2013 WL 5566035 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2012; filed July 18, 2012 *&*entered July 19, 2012; Oct. 8, 2013). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 Defendant argues that Josey did not effectively appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for default judgment and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. We conclude that, although Josey’s notice of appeal was technically deficient under Fed. R.App. P. 3(c), Defendant was on notice that Josey sought to appeal this order and will not *210be prejudiced by our review of it. See *Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert,*998 F.2d 680, 691 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that, when appellant addresses the merits of an issue in his opening brief, this alone "is enough to demonstrate that the appellee had notice of the issue and did not suffer prejudice from the appellant’s failure to specify the order in the notice of appeal”).
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3621 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3621

        To repeal the Alien Enemies Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 28, 2021

  Ms. Omar (for herself, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Norton, Mr. Vargas, Ms. 
 Jayapal, Ms. Chu, Mr. Panetta, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Blumenauer, 
Mrs. Watson Coleman, Ms. Pressley, Ms. Bass, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Takano, 
Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Pocan, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Levin of Michigan, 
Mr. Connolly, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Jacobs of California, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. 
 Cooper, Ms. Tlaib, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Meng, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney 
 of New York, Mr. Jones, Ms. Bush, Mr. Torres of New York, Mr. Khanna, 
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Ms. Newman, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Ms. 
Velazquez, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Williams of Georgia, 
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Mrs. Hayes, and Ms. Matsui) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To repeal the Alien Enemies Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Neighbors Not Enemies Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ALIEN ENEMIES ACT.

    Sections 4067 through 4070 of the Revised Statutes of the United 
States (50 U.S.C. 21-24) are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
#### In Re: Clifton Thompson BEY, Petitioner.

No. 10-4124.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. Dec. 2, 2010.

Opinion filed: Dec. 15, 2010.

Clifton Thompson Bey, Minersville, PA, pro se.

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On May 6, 2010, petitioner Clifton Thompson Bey, a federal prisoner proceeding *pro se,*petitioned the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in, *inter alia,*the disallowance of 27 days good conduct time and the forfeiture of 36 days non-vested good conduct time. On May 21, 2010, the District Court granted Thompson Bey’s motions for leave to *575proceed *in forma pauperis*and to amend the petition, and issued an order directing respondent to show cause within 21 days as to why Thompson Bey’s habeas petition should not be granted. Respondent complied by filing a timely response. Thompson Bey’s traverse followed on June 30, 2010, and his § 2241 petition is ripe for disposition. With no action having been taken on his petition, Thompson Bey filed a motion to expedite on September 30, 2010. That motion remains pending at this time. On October 25, 2010, Thompson Bey petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, requesting an order compelling the District Court to act upon his habeas petition.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary cases, *see In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig.,*418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.2005), as the petitioner must demonstrate that he has “no other adequate means” to obtain the relief desired and a “clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ. *Madden v. Myers,*102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). Although a District Court has discretion over the management of its docket, *see In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig.,*685 F.2d 810, 817-18 (3d Cir.1982), a federal appellate court “may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that [the District Court’s] undue delay is tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction.” *Madden,*102 F.3d at 79.

We recognize that more than five months have elapsed since the time Thompson Bey’s habeas petition became ripe for disposition. We further note that Thompson Bey’s projected release date— via good conduct time — is currently set for March 7, 2011, and that his petition, if successful, would entitle him to an earlier release. As in *Madden,*where we described a delay of nearly five months in acting on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as “of concern,” 102 F.3d at 79, a delay of this length is somewhat troubling in the instant case. Thus, there is some cause for concern here. However, the delay does not warrant mandamus relief and we are confident that the District Court will rule on Thompson Bey’s pending § 2241 petition without undue delay. The petition for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied, but without prejudice to Thompson Bey’s filing a new petition for a writ of mandamus should the District Court fail to act expeditiously in this matter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      12,578,932<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,352,847<F2>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    730,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,038,643
<PP&E>                                         129,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                 112,467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              61,582,753<F3>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,502,833
<BONDS>                                      4,673,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                       125,254
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,003,480)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                61,582,753
<SALES>                                     43,763,223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,763,223
<CGS>                                       17,755,882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,755,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            24,488,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             424,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,717,547
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,103,684
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,613,863
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,613,863
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
<FN>
<F1>CASH INCLUDES $486,659 WHICH IS RESTRICTED IN USE
<F2>RECEIVABLES INCLUDES $3,775,074 WHICH IS NONCURRENT
<F3>TOTAL ASSETS OF $3,729,012 ARE SUBJECT TO A LEGAL PROCEEDING
</FN>


</TABLE>
2013-1230.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Jacobs.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an application for reinstatement by respondent, Leslie William Jacobs, Attorney Registration No. 0020387, last known business address in Gates Mills, Ohio.

The court, coming now to consider its order of May 27, 2014, wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(3), suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of two years with credit for the time served under the April 3, 2012 interim felony suspension, finds that respondent has not substantially complied with that order.

Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          31,675
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      28,947,344
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,491,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,110,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,329,615
<BONDS>                                     15,374,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     799,803
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 19,110,34
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,154,596
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  575,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             712,862
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (838,697)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (838,697)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (838,697)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (32.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 10-K

                  Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

                     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

                      For the year ended December 31, 1998

Commission File Number 0-26132

                   SMITH BARNEY DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND L.P.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

            New York                               13-3729162                 
 (State or other jurisdiction of                             (I.R.S. Employer
          incorporation or organization)            Identification No.)

                    c/o Smith Barney Futures Management Inc.
                           390 Greenwich St. - 1st Fl.
                            New York, New York 10013
              (Address and Zip Code of principal executive offices)

                                 (212) 723-5424
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:  None
                                                             ----
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:         Units
                                                                    of Limited
                                                                    Partnership
                                                                    Interest
                                (Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the  preceding 12 months (or for such  shorter  period that the  registrant  was
required  to file  such  reports),  and  (2) has  been  subject  to such  filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

                                                        Yes   X    No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent  filers  pursuant to Item 405
of Regulation  S-K is not contained  herein,  and will not be contained,  to the
best of registrant's  knowledge,  in definitive proxy or information  statements
incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this
form 10-K [X]

As of February  28, 1999  Limited  Partnership  Units with an  aggregate  value 
of  $138,891,323  were  outstanding  and held by non-affiliates.

                       DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

                                      None
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

In the interest of L.T.M., a child, * From the 266 th District Court

of Erath County,

Trial Court No. CV32308

.

No. 11

- 15

- 00311

- CV * December 30 , 2016

* Memorandum Opinion by Willson

, J.

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t here

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ALI TAJ BEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-2188

September 27, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Barbara Twine 

Thomas, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William C. Shelhart, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. 

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133300 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 133300 COA: 273883 Macomb CC: 2 002-001166-FH FAITH ANN MORTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 4, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10276-10277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, 
Scientific Advisory Board

ACTION: None.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee meeting:

DATES: March 27, 2001 from 8:30 am to 4:05 pm and March 28, 2001 from 
8:30 am to 4:25pm.

ADDRESSES: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), 
4301 Wilson Boulevard, Conference Center Room 1, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Veronica Rice, SERDP Program 
Office, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by 
telephone at (703) 696-2119.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Matters to be Considered: Research and 
Development proposals and continuing projects requesting Strategic 
Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M 
will be reviewed.
    This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may 
attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory 
Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.


[[Page 10277]]


    Dated: February 7, 2001.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-3725 Filed 2-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-320-036]

Take notice that on January 31, 2001 Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) filed with the Commission a contract between Gulf South and the following company for disclosure of a recently negotiated rate transaction. Gulf South requests an effective date of February 1, 2001.

Special Negotiated Rate Between Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP and Mobile Energy LLC
      ( print page 9829)    
Gulf South states that it has served copies of this filing upon all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in this proceeding.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims/​htm*                     (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-3441  Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
2014-0581.

#### State v. Howard.

Cuyahoga App. No. 99535, 2013-Ohio-5125. On motion for delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J.; dissents.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 15, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-774

Lower Tribunal No. F09-16709B

________________

Johnny Jackson, Jr.,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lody Jean, Judge.

Johnny Jackson, Jr., in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 89]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32169]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis 
Panel, Special Review Panel--Telephone Conference (ZLM1 MMR P J2).
    Date: January 15, 2002.
    Time: 3 pm to 4 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Merlyn M Rodrigues, MD, PhD, Medical Officer/
SRA, National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20894.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, 
Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 20, 2001.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 01-32169 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M