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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7409

HENRY LEE HUNT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GARY DIXON; J.B. FRENCH; KEN HARRIS; LIEUTENANT PEELE; SARGEANT HARRELL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District

Judge. (CA-94-305-5-CT-BO)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Lee Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. William McBlief, NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Hunt

v. Dixon, CA-94-305-5-CT-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 1995). In addition,

we find that "some evidence" supported the decision of the prison

disciplinary board to sentence Appellant to disciplinary segregation. See Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Inst. v. Hill,

472 U.S. 445, 454-56 (1985). Finally, drawing all reasonable inferences favorable to Appellant, we find that he has not stated a

claim for violation of either his First or Eighth Amendment rights.

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.

AFFIRMED
§ 61.1 Background. ( a ) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.,* establishes national policies and goals for the protection of the environment. Section 102(2) of NEPA contains certain procedural requirements directed toward the attainment of such goals. In particular, all federal agencies are required to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of their proposed actions in their decisionmaking and to prepare detailed environmental statements on proposals for legislation significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and on other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
( b ) Executive Order No. 11991 of May 24, 1977, directed the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to issue regulations to implement the procedural provisions of NEPA. Accordingly, CEQ issued final NEPA regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, (“The NEPA regulations”). These regulations provide that each federal agency shall, as necessary, adopt implementing procedures to supplement the regulations. The NEPA regulations identify those sections of the regulations which must be addressed in agency procedures.
#### Bell & Coggeshall Company *v.*Slade & Starr.

June 28, 1910.

Exceptions to auditor’s report. Before Judge Reagan. Pike superior court.

June 28, 1909.

C. *J. Lester,*for plaintiff. *E. F. DuPree.*for defendants.

Lumpkin, J.

Under tlie pleadings and evidence in this ease, there was no error on the part of the presiding judge, to whom it was submitted on both law and facts without a jury, in overruling the exceptions to tV> auditor’s report and sustaining the finding of the auditor.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 115.212 Contracting with other entities for the confinement of residents. ( a ) A public agency that contracts for the confinement of its residents with private agencies or other entities, including other government agencies, shall include in any new contract or contract renewal the entity's obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards.
( b ) Any new contract or contract renewal shall provide for agency contract monitoring to ensure that the contractor is complying with the PREA standards.
( c ) Only in emergency circumstances in which all reasonable attempts to find a private agency or other entity in compliance with the PREA standards have failed, may the agency enter into a contract with an entity that fails to comply with these standards. In such a case, the public agency shall document its unsuccessful attempts to find an entity in compliance with the standards.
### §410hh–3. Native selections

Valid Native Corporation selections, or lands identified for selection by Regional Corporations pursuant to section 17(d)(2)(E) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1616(d)(2)(E)], within the boundaries of the Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park and Preserve as established under this Act, are hereby recognized and shall be honored and conveyed by the Secretary in accordance with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] and this Act.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title II, §204, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2384.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 92–203, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§1601 et seq.) of Title 43, Public Lands. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of Title 43 and Tables.

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 96–487, Dec. 2, 1980, 94 Stat. 2371, known as the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.
#### § 100.20 Confidentiality of trade secrets/proprietary information.

With respect to any information provided to the FBI under this part that is identified as company proprietary information, it shall be treated as privileged and confidential and only shared within the government on a need-to-know basis. It shall not be disclosed outside the government for any reason inclusive of Freedom of Information requests, without the prior written approval of the company. Information provided will be used exclusively for the implementation of CALEA. This restriction does not limit the government's right to use the information provided if obtained from any other source without limitation.
§ 100.18 Audit. ( a ) *General.* In order to evaluate the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the cost data, the FBI or other representatives of the Government shall have the right to examine and audit all of the carrier's supporting materials. ( 1 ) These materials include, but are not limited to books, records, documents, and other data, regardless of form (e.g., machine readable media such as disk, tape) or type (e.g., data bases, applications software, data base management software, utilities), including computations and projections related to proposing, negotiating, costing, or performing CALEA compliance efforts or modifications.
( 2 ) The right of examination shall extend to all documents necessary to permit adequate evaluation of the cost data submitted, along with the computations and projections used.
( b ) *Audits of request for payment.* The carrier shall maintain and the FBI or representatives of the Government shall have the right to examine and audit supporting materials. ( 1 ) These materials include, but are not limited to, books, records, documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices, regardless of form (e.g., machine readable media such as disk, tape) or type (e.g., date bases, applications software, data base management software, utilities), sufficient to reflect properly all costs claimed to have been incurred, or anticipated to be incurred, in performing the CALEA compliance effort.
( 2 ) This right of examination shall include inspection at all reasonable times of the carrier's plants, or parts of them, engaged in performing the effort.
( c ) *Reports.* If the carrier is required to furnish cost, funding, or performance reports, the FBI or representatives of the Government shall have the right to examine and audit books, records, other documents, and supporting materials, for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the carrier's policies and procedures to produce data compatible with the objectives of these reports and the data reported.
( d ) *Availability.* The carrier shall make available at its office at all reasonable times the costs and support material described herein, for examination, audit, or reproduction, until three (3) years after final reimbursement payment. In addition, ( 1 ) If the CALEA compliance effort is completely or partially terminated, the records relating to the work terminated shall be made available for three (3) years after any resulting final termination settlement; and
( 2 ) Records relating to appeals, litigation or the settlement of claims arising under or relating to the CALEA compliance effort shall be made available until such appeals, litigation, or claims are disposed of.
( e ) *Subcontractors.* The carrier shall ensure that all terms and conditions herein are incorporated in any agreement with a subcontractor that may be utilized by the carrier to perform any or all portions of the agreement.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00004-CR

Ricky Don Hayworth

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR12533)

September 29, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

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

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
### §2506. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 95–625, title X, §1007, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3541; Pub. L. 103–322, title III, §31504, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1889, related to local commitments to system recovery and maintenance. See section 200504 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AuGrid Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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 results of operation of the Company.

Date:    November 12, 2004            By:/s/MJ Shaheed
                                      Name:    M.J. Shaheed
                                      Title:Chief Executive/Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to AuGrid Corporation and
will be retained by AuGrid Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                 EXHIBIT 32.1-1


                                      -1-
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Western   Financial
Corporation,  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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.


Date: September 4, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7732

GILBERT BLACKWELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EARL BESHEARS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1492-AMD) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Gilbert Blackwell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Blackwell v. Beshears , No. CA-98-1492-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 22, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 28, 2011

p1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143605

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143605 COA: 304108 Oakland CC: 2010-233749-FC LUAY BAHJAT HANA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 28, 2011 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.
§ 806.30 Monitoring. The Commission, as part of the project review, shall evaluate the proposed methodology for monitoring consumptive uses, water withdrawals and mitigating flows, including flow metering devices, stream gages, and other facilities used to measure the withdrawals or consumptive use of the project or the rate of stream flow. If the Commission determines that additional flow measuring, metering or monitoring devices are required, these shall be provided at the expense of the project sponsor, installed in accordance with a schedule set by the Commission, and installed per the specifications and recommendations of the manufacturer of the device, and shall be subject to inspection by the Commission at any time. ( a ) Project sponsors of projects that are approved under this part shall: ( 1 ) Measure and record on a daily basis, or such other frequency as may be approved by the Commission, the quantity of all withdrawals, using meters or other methods approved by the Commission.
( 2 ) Certify, at the time of installation and no less frequently than once every 5 years, the accuracy of all measuring devices and methods to within 5 percent of actual flow, unless specified otherwise by the Commission.
( 3 ) Maintain metering or other approved methods so as to provide a continuous, accurate record of the withdrawal or consumptive use.
( 4 ) Measure groundwater levels in all approved production and other wells, as specified by the Commission.
( 5 ) Measure groundwater levels at additional monitoring locations, as specified by the Commission.
( 6 ) Measure water levels in surface storage facilities, as specified by the Commission.
( 7 ) Measure stream flows, passby flows or conservation releases, as specified by the Commission, using methods and at frequencies approved by the Commission.
( 8 ) Perform other monitoring for impacts to water quantity, water quality and aquatic biological communities, as specified by the Commission.
( b ) *Reporting.* ( 1 ) Project sponsors whose projects are approved under this section shall report to the Commission on a quarterly basis on forms and in a manner prescribed by the Commission all information recorded under paragraph (a) of this section, unless otherwise specified by the Commission.
( 2 ) Project sponsors whose projects are approved under this section shall report to the Commission: ( i ) Violations of withdrawal limits and any conditions of approvals, within 5 days of such violation.
( ii ) Loss of measuring or recording capabilities required under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, within 5 days after any such loss.
[71 FR 78579, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 29393, June 29, 2017]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

STEVEN M. BETSINGER, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

DHI MORTGAGE COMPANY, LTD., A 

TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

Respondent. 

No. 67502 

FILED 

MAR 1 8 2016 

TRACIE K. LINDEMAN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

SDEPUTC174..-'1,-Rn 

BY 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is an appeal from a district court order awarding costs. 

Respondent argues in its answering brief that this court lacks jurisdiction 

over this appeal because the district court has not entered a final 

judgment following a new trial on punitive damages. Based on that 

argument and our review of the appendices and docketing statement, we 

ordered appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction, as it appears that the district court has not entered 

a final, appealable order and that the appeal from the costs award 

therefore would be premature. See NRAP 3A(b)(8) (allowing appeals from 

special orders after final judgment). 

In his response to our show cause order, appellant argues that 

he has a final judgment against one of the other parties to the underlying 

district court action, who is not named in this appeal, and therefore the 

subsequently entered costs order is appealable As respondent points out, 

however, the district court has not entered an appealable final judgment 

following the retrial on punitive damages, and thus, the appeal from the 

costs award is premature. NRAP 3A(b)(8); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 

424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (explaining that a final judgment 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 16 - o 8(05 
J. 

HardestyJ. 

J. 

resolves all of the parties' rights and liabilities, leaving nothing for the 

future consideration of the court). Accordingly, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge 

Feldman Graf 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Reno 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

101 1947A eo
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 15352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6706]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, March 
24, 2011 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of 
the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
March 24, 2011 will be:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

     March 17, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6706 Filed 3-17-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### §§ 31.403-31.404 [Reserved]
#### § 33.51 Audit.

Pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128 “Audits of State and Local Governments,” all grantees and subgrantees must provide for an independent audit of their activities on a periodic basis. For additional information on audit requirements, applicants should refer to the “Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants,” Guideline Manual 7100.1, Office of Justice Programs.
Editorial Note on Subpart G of Part 42
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart G of part 42 appear by Order No. 2679-2003, 68 FR 51364, 51365, 51366, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 42.512 Employment criteria. ( a ) A recipient may not use any employment test or other selection criterion that tends to screen out handicapped persons unless: ( 1 ) The test score or other selection criterion, as used by the recipient, is shown to be job-related for the position in question, and
( 2 ) Alternative job-related tests or criteria that tend to screen out fewer handicapped persons are not shown by the appropriate Department officials to be available.
( b ) A recipient shall administer tests using procedures (*e.g.,* auxiliary aids such as readers for visually-impaired persons or qualified sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons) that accommodate the special problems of handicapped persons to the fullest extent, consistent with the objectives of the test. When a test is administered to an applicant or employee who has a handicap that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results must accurately reflect the applicant's or employee's job skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the applicant's or employee's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).