alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas N. TWEH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. Robert GREEN; Captain Payne; Sergeant Jeffers; Corporal Muhammad; Sergeant Tate; Doctor Dadgar; Mr. Anthony Sturgess; Doctor Davaris; P.A. D. Stansbury; Sheriff Deputy Green; Sheriff Deputy Songco, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-8026.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 22, 2014.

Thomas N. Tweh, Appellant Pro Se. Christine M. Collins, Edward Barry Latt-ner, County Attorney’s Office, Rockville, Maryland; Jennifer L. Katz, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas N. Tweh seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing Tweh’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) claims against several Defendants and has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because Tweh’s claims against three Defendants remain, the orders Tweh seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny Tweh’s motion for appointment of counsel and 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.*
# CountyFIPSwostoffice

# Drought2

# Public File

# Sheet1 (2)
#### Everett HOUCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harold BALL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-6265.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 12, 2014.

Everett Houck, Del City, OK, pro se.

Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MICHAEL R. MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

After examining Appellant’s brief and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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.

On August 3, 2012, pro se appellant Everett Houck initiated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants Harold Ball and Judge Dan Owens in Oklahoma state court. The district court dismissed the suit with prejudice and this court affirmed the dismissal. *Houck v. Ball,*491 Fed.Appx. 934 (10th Cir.2012). Houck filed a second § 1983 action against Defendant Ball on October 30, 2013. The district court dismissed Houck’s second suit, concluding it was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. *See Wilkes v. Wyo. Dep’t of Emp’t Div. of Labor Standards,*314 F.3d 501, 503-04 (10th Cir.2002) (“Under res judicata, or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in the prior action.” (quotation omitted)).

Houck then filed the instant appeal together with a request to proceed *in forma pauperis.*A dismissal on res judicata grounds is reviewed de novo. *MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick,*427 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir.2005). Having reviewed the record, Houck’s appellate brief, and the applicable law, we discern no reversible error in the dismissal of Houck’s instant § 1983 complaint. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the district court’s order dismissing Houck’s complaint is affirmed for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its Order dated November 5, 2013. Houck’s motion to proceed *in forma pauperis*is denied and he is reminded that he must make immediate payment of the unpaid balance of his appellate filing fee. All other outstanding motions are denied.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Safe Technologies
International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Posner, President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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



                                                     /s/ Michael Posner
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Michael Posner, President
                                                     November 14, 2003
**Exhibit 13.1****906 CERTIFICATION**     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the annual report onForm 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying withRule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) andSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.     IgnacioAntoñanzas A., the Chief Executive Officer and Alfredo Ergas S., the Chief FinancialOfficer of ENERSIS S.A., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the ExchangeAct; and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Endesa Chile.Date:May 14, 2007     */s/*Ignacio Antoñanzas A.     Name: Ignacio Antoñanzas A.  Chief Executive Officer     */s/*Alfredo Ergas S.     Name: Alfredo Ergas S.  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.1

   Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
                              (Dollars in millions)

The Company's consolidated ratios of earnings to combined fixed charges and
preferred stock dividends for each of the periods indicated are set forth below:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Year Ended
                                                            -------------------------------
                                                            Dec. 31,    Dec. 31,    Dec. 31,
                                                              1999        1998        1997
                                                             ------      ------      ------
<S>                                                          <C>         <C>         <C>
Income before income taxes                                   $370.8      $293.6      $280.6

Combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends:
 Interest expense on deposits                                 481.4       465.5       473.0

 Interest expense on long-term debt                            13.9        13.9         6.4

 Interest expense on guaranteed preferred beneficial
   interest in Company's junior subordinated debentures        18.3        18.3        10.7

 Appropriate portion (1/3) of rent expense                      7.7         5.5         4.3

 Preferred stock dividend requirements                           --          --         0.4
                                                             ------      ------      ------
       Total combined fixed charges and
         preferred stock dividends                           $521.3      $503.2      $494.8
                                                             ======      ======      ======

Earnings before income taxes and combined fixed
 charges and preferred stock dividends                       $892.1      $796.8      $775.4
                                                             ======      ======      ======

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
 preferred stock dividends (including interest expense
 on deposits)                                                 1.71x       1.58x       1.57x
                                                             ======      ======      ======
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PERRY HENDERSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 503 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2190 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2190

  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide that 
 multicandidate political committee contributions to a candidate in a 
  Senate or House of Representatives election may constitute only one-
     third of the total of contributions accepted by the candidate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 1993

Mr. Smith of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide that 
 multicandidate political committee contributions to a candidate in a 
  Senate or House of Representatives election may constitute only one-
     third of the total of contributions accepted by the candidate.

    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 ``Fairness in Campaign Finance Act of 
1993''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ACCEPTANCE OF MULTICANDIDATE POLITICAL COMMITTEE 
              CONTRIBUTIONS BY CANDIDATES IN SENATE AND HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES ELECTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following 
new subsection:
    ``(i)(1) A candidate for the office of Senator or Representative 
in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress may not 
accept a multicandidate political committee contribution with respect 
to an election if the amount of the multicandidate political committee 
contribution plus the total of multicandidate political committee 
contributions previously accepted during the same calendar quarter 
exceeds one-third of the sum of the multicandidate political committee 
contribution and the total of contributions previously accepted from 
all sources during that calendar quarter.
    ``(2) In each report of contributions under this Act, a candidate 
referred to in paragraph (1) shall certify compliance with this 
subsection.
    ``(3) As used in this subsection, the term `multicandidate 
political committee' has the meaning given that term in subsection 
(a)(4).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to elections held after November 8, 1994.

                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). tk/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAT T HE W J . MONA C O, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. T . M O B E R G ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 55364 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 6 5 3 6 - CA SF MO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C hr i s t i naA . S ny de r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anua ry11, 2010 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a tthe w J . M ona c o, aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g th a t a 

# FI LED JAN 22 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALStk / Res ea r ch 08- 55364 2 p r is o n g u ar da tta c k e dh im . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ad is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) . B arr e n v . H arr i ngton , 152 F . 3d 1193, 1194 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( or de r ) . W e a f f i rm i n part , va c a t e i n part , a nd r e m a nd. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dM o n a c o ’s a c tio n w ith o u t le a v e to am end b ec ause j ud gm enti n h i s f avor w ou l d n ec es sari l y i m pl y the i nv al i di ty of a previ ou s c on vi ct i on and M on ac o fai l ed t o al l ege thatthe conv i ct i on had b ee n i nva l i da t e d. See H

ec k v . H um ph re y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 6 - 8 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ; se e al so Cato v. U ni ted States , 70 F . 3d 1103, 1106 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( a f f i rm i ng di s m i s s a l w i thout l eave t o am end w here the com pl ai nt ’ s def i ci enci es coul d n otbe cured by further am endm ent ). H ow ever , the di sm i ss alshou l d h ave been w i tho utprej ud i ce . See T ri m b le v. C i t

y o f Sa n ta R o sa , 4 9 F . 3 d5 8 3 , 5 8 5 ( 9 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we vaca t e the j ud gm entand rem and for the l i m i t ed pu rpose of e nt er i ng a di sm i ss al w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e . M o n a c o s h a ll b e arh is o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. AF F I RME D i n p a r t , V AC AT E D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

______________ No. 10-1093

_____________
In Re: KWAME GYAMFI, Petitioner.

_____________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

_____________ Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010

_____________ Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

_____________ Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_____________ Kwame Gyamfi, Petitioner Pro Se.

_____________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Kwame Gyamfi petitions for writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“CVRA”). He asserts that he is entitled to mandamus relief because the district court denied his motion for default judgment on his complaint seeking civil damages from the United States government for an alleged violation of his rights under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, 26 U.S.C. § 7433. Petitioner asserts that Internal Revenue Service employees have violated numerous criminal statutes in connection with collection of taxes owed by him and in defending the civil suit he filed below. Petitioner’s request for mandamus relief is denied. We note that Gyamfi did not first assert the rights described in § 3771(a) of the CVRA in the district court as required by § 3771(d)(3). Section 3771(d)(3) provides that a movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus only where the district court has denied the relief sought by motion asserting a victim’s right. In any event, petitioner was not entitled to the protections of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 in his district court proceedings which were civil in nature. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). The CVRA was designed to protect victims and guarantee them some involvement in the criminal justice process. “The rights codified by the CVRA, however, are limited to the

23 criminal justice process; the Act is therefore silent and unconcerned with victims’ rights to file civil claims.” United States v. Moussaoui , 483 F.3d 220, 234-35 (4th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Finding no application of 18 U.S.C. § 3771 to these proceedings, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED
SCHEDULE P Acquisitions, Dispositions, and Changes of Interests

(Form 8865) in a Foreign Partnership

OMB No. 1545-1668

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service © Attach To Form 8865. See Instructions for Form 8865.

Name of person filing Form 8865 Filer’s identifying number

Acquisitions

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 8865. Cat. No. 25943Q Schedule P (Form 8865) 2008

Part I

Part II

(under section 6046A)

(e)

% of interest

before acquisition

(b)

Date of acquisition

(a)

Name, address, and identifying number of

person from whom your interest was acquired

Dispositions

Part III Change in Proportional Interest

Part IV

(c)

FMV of

interest acquired

(d)

Basis in

interest acquired

(f)

% of interest

after acquisition

(a)

Description of change

Name of foreign partnership

Supplemental Information Required To Be Reported (see instructions)

(e)

% of interest

before disposition

(b)

Date of disposition

(c)

FMV of

interest disposed

(d)

Basis in

interest disposed

(f)

% of interest

after disposition

(a)

Name, address, and identifying number of

person who acquired your interest

(e)

% of interest

before change

(b)

Date of change

(c)

FMV of

interest

(d)

Basis in

interest

(f)

% of interest

after change

2008
Form 965-B

(January 2019)

Corporate and Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Report of Net 965 

Tax Liability and Electing REIT Report of 965 Amounts

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service ▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form965B for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0123

Check this box if this is an amended report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

Name of taxpayer or REIT Identifying number Taxable year of reporting

REITs Electing To Account for Section 965 Amounts Over Time Must Fill Out Part III.

Part I Report of Net 965 Tax Liability and Election To Pay in Installments 

(a) 

Year of 

Section 

965(a) 

Inclusion or 

Liability 

Assumed 

(see instructions)

(b)

Taxpayer’s Net Tax Liability 

with all 

965 amounts 

(see instructions)

(c)

Taxpayer’s Net Tax Liability 

without 

965 amounts 

(see instructions)

(d)

Net 965 Tax Liability 

(subtract column (c) 

from column (b))

(e)

Installment 

Election 

Made

(f)

Net 965 Tax Liability 

to be paid in full in Year 1 

(if column (e) is “No,” enter 

amount from column (d))

(g) 

Net 965 Tax Liability 

to be paid in installments 

(if column (e) is “Yes,” enter 

amount from column (d) 

and see instructions) 

(h) 

Net 965 Tax Liability 

Transferred (Out), 

Transferred In, or 

Subsequent Adjustments, 

if any (see instructions)

(i) 

Tax 

Identification 

Number 

of buyer/

transferee or 

seller/ 

transferor Yes No 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Part II Record of Amount of Net 965 Tax Liability Paid by the Taxpayer (see instructions)

(a) 

Year of Section 965(a) 

Inclusion or 

Liability Assumed 

(see instructions)

(b)

Paid for Year 1

(c)

Paid for Year 2

(d)

Paid for Year 3

(e)

Paid for Year 4

(f)

Paid for Year 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

(g)

Paid for Year 6

(h)

Paid for Year 7

(i)

Paid for Year 8

(j)

Net 965 Tax Liability

Remaining Unpaid (see instructions)

(k)

Net 965 Tax Liability 

Paid for the Reporting Year

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the separate instructions. Cat. No. 71278S Form 965-B (1-2019)
Form 965-B (1-2019) Page 2

Part III Electing REIT Report of Section 965 Amounts Accounted for Over Time (see instructions)

(a) 

Tax Year of 

Section 965(a) Inclusion and 

Section 965(c) Deduction

(b)

Amount Elected to be 

Accounted for Over Time

(c)

Portion Accounted for in 

Year 1

(d)

Portion Accounted for in 

Year 2

(e)

Portion Accounted for in 

Year 3

(f)

Portion Accounted for in 

Year 4

1a

1b

2a

2b

3a

3b

(g)

Portion Accounted for in 

Year 5

(h)

Portion Accounted for in 

Year 6

(i)

Portion Accounted for in 

Year 7

(j)

Portion Accounted for in 

Year 8

(k)

Amount Remaining to be 

Accounted for

(l)

Portion Accounted for 

in this Reporting Year

1a

1b

2a

2b

3a

3b

Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

If more lines are needed for any Parts on this form, attach additional sheets.

Form 965-B (1-2019)
947 A.2d 712

#### In re DAUPHIN COUNTY FOURTH INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY. Petition of Louis Denaples and Mount Airy #1, L.L.C.

No. 28 MM 2008.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 2, 2008.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2008, Petitioners’ request for the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 726 is granted limited to the question of alleged violations of grand jury secrecy. *See also, In Re: Dauphin County Investigating Grand Jury (Petition of Joseph F. Sica),*13 MM 2008.

The matter is remanded to Supervising Judge Todd A. Hoover for the purpose of conducting an expedited evidentiary hearing relating to allegations of violations of the secrecy provisions of the Investigating Grand Jury Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 4541 et seq. At the conclusion of the hearing, Supervising Judge Hoover is directed to consider whether a special prosecutor should be appointed to pursue the allegations and to forward an opinion setting forth his findings and recommendations to this Court within ninety days of the date of this order.

The remaining claims presented in the Renewed Application for Review, and the request for a stay, are denied.

Jurisdiction is retained.
Plant Management 

Respond to Noncompliance Records 

Welcome to the Public Health 

Information System. In this 

demonstration, you will learn 

how to respond to 

noncompliance records. I'll 

guide you through the steps of 

accomplishing this task.

First, click My Establishments.
Next, click Select 

Establishments.

Select the desired 

establishment.
Click, Respond to NR.

A list of noncompliance records 

documented by the FSIS 

inspector appears.
Click the red arrow for the NR 

that you would like to respond 

to.

The Plant Management 

Response page appears.
Use the scroll bar to review the 

Description of NonCompliance.

Scroll the page down.
In this scenario, we will accept 

the FSIS decision. Select, Accept 

FSIS's decision.

You may optionally enter 

content in the text box.
Click, Save.

This saves the information that 

has been entered, but does not 

submit the response.
Click, Submit.

A pop-up box appears. Are you 

sure you want to submit?

Click OK.
The Submit action has locked 

and submitted the response to 

FSIS.

This is the end of this exercise. 

You will now be returned to the 

introductory screen. Thanks for 

your interest in the Public Health 

Information System.