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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8452

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. LESTER M. HAYES, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L.Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00364-WO-1; 1:07-cv00977-WO-WWD)

Submitted: April 22, 2009 Decided: June 1, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester M. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lester M. Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hayes’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1868

To prohibit the lifting of the United States embargo of Vietnam.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 27, 1993

Mr. HUNTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To prohibit the lifting of the United States embargo of

Vietnam.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom First for

5 Vietnam Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIFTING OF VIETNAM EMBARGO.

7 The President may not rescind the exercise of those

8 authorities with respect to the United States embargo of

9 Vietnam which were extended under Presidential Deter10 mination No. 91–52 of September 13, 1991, unless the

11 President determines and certifies to the Congress that—
2

•HR 1868 IH

1 (1) the Government of Vietnam and the Com2 munist Party of Vietnam have made a public com3 mitment to permit free and fair elections, monitored

4 by international observers, for a national legislature

5 and local government offices; and

6 (2) Vietnamese laws restricting internationally7 recognized freedoms of expression, association, and

8 religion have been eliminated.

Æ
Order entered October 2 6 , 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 17 - 00517 - CR ERBIE BOWSER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judic ial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 16 - 00688 - CR



### O RDER Before the Court is the October 23, 2017 motion for extension of time to file appellant ’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before December 20, 2017.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1892 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1892

To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Great Western 
      Trail for potential addition to the National Trails System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 1993

Mr. Hansen (for himself, Mr. Orton, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
     Stump, Ms. Shepherd, Mr. Thomas of Wyoming, and Mr. Williams) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Great Western 
      Trail for potential addition to the National Trails System.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE GREAT WESTERN TRAIL AS A STUDY TRAIL.

    Section 5(c) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(  ) The Great Western Scenic Trail, a system of trails to 
accommodate a variety of travel users in a corridor of approximately 
3,100 miles in length extending from the Arizona-Mexico border to the 
Idaho-Montana-Canada border, following the approximate route depicted 
on the map identified as `Great Western Trail Corridor, 1988', which 
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the Office of 
the Chief of the Forest Service, United States Department of 
Agriculture. The trail shall be administered by the Secretary of 
Agriculture. Notwithstanding section 7, motorized vehicles may be 
permitted, in accordance with rules prescribed by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, on components of the Great Western Scenic Trail system.''.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Burnham Pacific Properties, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-10559, 333-58347 and 333-86419 on Form S-8 and 33-56555, 333-31591 and
333-69957 on Form S-3 of Burnham Pacific Properties, Inc. of our report dated
March 1, 2000 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Burnham Pacific
Properties, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

//Deloitte & Touche, LLP//

March 28, 2000
San Diego, California
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 1617

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 19 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

AN ACT

To authorize the establishment on the grounds of the Edward

Hines, Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital,

Hines, Illinois, of a facility to provide temporary accommodations for family members of severely ill children

being treated at a nearby university medical center.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1617 RFS

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT FOR

2 USE OF PROPERTY AT EDWARD HINES, JR.,

3 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HOS4 PITAL.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

6 may enter into a long-term lease or similar agreement with

7 the organization known as The Caring Place at Loyola,

8 Inc., a not-for-profit organization operating under the

9 laws of the State of Illinois, to permit that organization

10 to establish on the grounds of the Edward Hines, Jr., De11 partment of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois, a

12 facility to provide temporary accommodations for family

13 members of severely ill children who are being treated at

14 the Loyola University of Chicago Medical Center and

15 other hospitals.

16 (b) CONDITIONS.—An agreement under subsection

17 (a) shall ensure that there shall be no cost to the United

18 States as a result of the property use authorized by that

19 subsection and may permit the use of the property without

20 rent.

Passed the House of Representatives April 18, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 20

- 00219

- CV

V

AN L E AND D UNG T RAN

, Appellants

V

.

Q UYEN N GUYEN

, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 393rd District Court

of Denton County ( 19

- 7206

- 393 )

May 13, 2021

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

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

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed f or want of

prosecution

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                          MICROFINANCIAL, INCORPORATED
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 REGARDING QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE
                           QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2003

         Richard F. Latour, President and Chief Executive Officer of
MicroFinancial, Incorporated, (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the Quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Covered Report") and, excepts as
corrected or supplemented in a subsequent covered report:

-        the Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

-        the information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned has signed this Certification as of this
August 14, 2003.

                                  /s/RICHARD F . LATOUR
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  President and Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2019

No. 04-19-00067-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Teresita CRUZ,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI05398

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on April 23, 2019. No further extensions will be granted absent 

extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9912-9913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98-AAL-26]

RIN 2120-AA66


Modification and Revocation of VOR and Colored Federal Airways 
and Jet Routes; AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 6, 2000. In that rule, the legal description of 
Colored Federal Airway Green 8 (G-8) contained an inadvertent error 
that excluded the Glenallen, AK, NDB Intersection from the description 
of G-8. This action corrects that error.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 13, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules 
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence

[[Page 9913]]

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 2000, Airspace Docket No. 98-AAL-
26 (65 FR 35822; FR Doc. 00-14044) was published for the modification 
and revocation of VOR and Colored Federal Airways, and Jet Routes in 
Alaska. Included in this rule was the amendment to the legal 
description of G-8 which omitted the Glenallen, AK, NDB Intersection. 
This action adds the Glenallen intersection to the legal description of 
G-8, thereby correcting this error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal 
description for Colored Federal Airway G-8, as published in the Federal 
Register on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35822; FR Doc. 00-14044), and 
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is corrected as follows:


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

    On page 35823, correct the legal description of the G-8, to read as 
follows:

Paragraph 6009  (a)--Green Federal Airways

* * * * *

G-8  [Revised]

From Shemya, AK, NDB, 20 AGL , Mount Moffet, NDB, AK; 20 AGL Dutch 
Harbor, AK, NDB; 20 AGL INT Dutch Harbor NDB 041 deg. and Elfee, AK, 
NDB 253 deg. bearings; 20 AGL Elfee NDB; 20 AGL Saldo, AK, NDB; INT 
Saldo NDB 054 deg. and Kachemak, AK, NDB 269 deg. bearings, to 
Kachemak NDB. From Campbell Lake, AK, NDB; INT Campbell Lake NDB 
031 deg. and Glenallen, AK, NDB 255 deg. bearings; Glenallen NDB; 
INT Glenallen NDB 052 deg. and Nabesna, AK, NDB 252 deg. bearings; 
Nabesna NDB.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2001.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.
[FR Doc. 01-3642 Filed 2-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### Theo SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-3776.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 23, 2014.

Filed: Aug. 7, 2014.

Theo Smith, Minneapolis, MN, pro se.

Juan C. Basombrio, Costa Mesa, CA, Frederick Matthew Ralph, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Theo Smith appeals from an order directing him to pay sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Upon careful review, we find no abuse of discretion. *See Dunbar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,*709 F.3d 1254, 1258 (8th Cir.2013) (standard of review; history of frivolous litigation is relevant factor in decision to impose sanctions). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1852

To end the price support program for wool and mohair.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 26, 1993

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To end the price support program for wool and mohair.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wool and Mohair Price

5 Support Program Termination Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF WOOL AND MOHAIR PRICE SUP7 PORT PROGRAM.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The National Wool Act of 1954

9 (7 U.S.C. 1781 et seq.) is repealed.

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 256(a) of

11 the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act

12 of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 906(a)) is amended—
2

HR 1852 IH

1 (1) by striking paragraph (1); and

2 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as

3 paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively.

4 SEC. 3. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

5 The amendments made by this Act shall not affect

6 the liability of any person under any provision of law as

7 in effect before the effective date of this Act.

8 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

9 The Act and the amendments made by this Act shall

10 apply beginning with the marketing year beginning Janu11 ary 1, 1994.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamont Antwon SANDERS, a/k/a Twon, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6812.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 6, 2010.

Lamont Antwon Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Leotta, John Walter Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Antwon Sanders appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to correct the record. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Sanders,*No. l:06-cr-00087-JFM-l (D.Md. May 19, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *718the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 10.31

                         NON-NEGOTIABLE PROMISSORY NOTE


$20,000.00                                           Dated: September 8, 1997


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned ("Maker") hereby promises
to pay to the order of Jan Wernick ("Lender"), at 524 Longacre Avenue, Woodmere,
NY 11598, upon the earlier of December 31, 1998 or the completion of a public
offering of its common stock, the principal sum of TWENTY THOUSAND ($20,000.00)
DOLLARS AND 00/100. Interest shall accrue from the date hereof at the rate of
twelve percent per annum (or at the highest rate permitted by law, if lower) on
the unpaid principal balance from time to time outstanding.

                  Payment of the principal of, and interest on, this Note shall
be payable at the aforesaid address in the lawful money of the United States of
America, or at such other place as the holder of this Note shall have designated
to the Maker in writing.

                  Maker waives presentment, protest, demand, and notice of
protest, of demand and of dishonor and of nonpayment of this Note and expressly
agrees that this Note, or any payment hereunder, may be extended from time to
time by Lender without in any way affecting the liability of Maker hereof.

                  This note is not negotiable or assignable by the Lender.

                  This Note will in all respects be governed by and construed in
accordance with the New York Uniform Commercial Code.


                                                ROYAL CANADIAN FOODS CORP.


                                                By:
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Sheldon Golumbia, President
#### SARA S. MARSHALL *v.*STEPHEN P. MARSHALL*

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 18608.

*Kenneth J. Bartschi*and *Karen L. Dowd,*in support of the petition.

Decided May 5, 2010

*

 The appeal was withdrawn November 18, 2010.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 119 Conn. App. 120 (AC 30207), is granted, limited to the following issue:

> “Did the Appellate Court properly limit its remand order to a rehearing only on the trial court’s orders concerning the parties’ tangible personal property?”
**FEDERAL****MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTHREVIEWCOMMISSION**

** **

SUNSHINEACTNOTICEBAC6735-01

March 7, 2016

 

 

TIMEANDDATE:                10:00a.m.,Thursday,March 24,2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichardV.BackleyHearingRoom,Room511N,1331PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC20004(enterfromFStreetentrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERS TO BE

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommissionwillconsiderandactuponthefollowinginopen

session:*SecretaryofLaborv.KnightHawkCoal,LLC,*DocketNos.LAKE2014-121-R,etal.(IssuesincludewhethertheJudgeerredinaffirminganunwarrantablefailurefindinginconnectionwith a fatalityinvolvinga continuous mineroperator.)

 

 

Anypersonattendingthismeetingwhorequiresspecialaccessibilityfeaturesand/orauxiliaryaids,suchassignlanguageinterpreters,mustinformtheCommissioninadvanceofthoseneeds.Subjectto 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACT PERSON

FORMORE INFO:                Emogene Johnson (202)434-9935/ (202) 708-9300for TDD

Relay/1-800-877-8339for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SarahL.StewartDeputyGeneralCounsel
EXHIBIT 11


                          NANOPIERCE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                         Three Months Ended             Six Months Ended
                                              March 31                      March 31
                                         -------------------           -------------------
                                         2001           2000           2001           2000
                                         ----           ----           ----           ----

<S>                                <C>             <C>            <C>            <C>

Net loss                           $(   742,941)   ( 1,765,338)   ( 2,566,128)   ( 2,867,897)
                                     ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding          50,932,506     34,217,425     44,473,600     32,030,727

Common equivalent shares
  representing shares issuable
  upon exercise of outstanding
  options and warrants                      -              -              -              -
                                     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

                                     50,932,506     34,217,425     44,473,600     32,030,727
                                     ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========


Basic and diluted loss per share:

    Loss from continuing
      operations                   $(       .01)   (       .05)   (       .05)   (       .09)

    Extraordinary loss              (       .00)   (       .00)   (       .01)   (       .00)
                                     ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

      Net loss                     $(       .01)   (       .05)   (       .06)   (       .09)
                                     ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

</TABLE>


Stock options and warrants are not considered in the calculations as the impact
of the potential common shares (8,727,661 shares at March 31, 2001 and
18,034,713 shares at March 31, 2000) would be to decrease net loss per share.
The potential common shares at March 31, 2001 do not include any additional
shares that may be due under the financing agreement described in Note 4 since
the Company has alleged in a suit filed April 27, 2001 that the Companies and
individuals providing the financing (defendants) fraudulently obtained
substantial shares in the Company, and the right to be issued additional shares,
by making fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions to the Company.