alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6599

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEO HINSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00120-F) Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 27, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leo Hinson, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Leo Hinson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his action seeking relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion to reconsider. Regarding Hinson’s motion to reduce his sentence under § 3582(c)(2), we affirm for the reasons as stated by the district court. United States v. Hinson , No. 7:02-cr-00120-F (E.D.N.C. entered Nov. 3, 2005 & filed Nov. 9, 2005; Mar. 7, 2006). Regarding Hinson’s relief sought under § 2255, the orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 Hinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately- 3 - presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART , DISMISSED IN PART
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,052.90

 1,053.70

 1,054.45

 1,054.98

 1,055.22

 1,055.93

 1,056.59

 1,057.02

 1,057.05

 1,056.97

 1,056.83

 1,056.77

 1,056.50

 1,056.09

 1,055.71

 1,055.52

 1,055.34

 1,054.93

 1,054.77

 1,054.67

 1,054.82

 1,054.70

 1,054.67

 1,054.50

 1,054.06

 1,053.66

 1,053.54

 1,053.24

 1,052.87

 1,052.60

 1,052.37

 2,007.0

 2,015.9

 2,024.2

 2,030.1

 2,032.8

 2,040.8

 2,048.2

 2,053.0

 2,053.3

 2,052.4

 2,050.9

 2,050.2

 2,047.2

 2,042.6

 2,038.3

 2,036.2

 2,034.2

 2,029.6

 2,027.8

 2,026.7

 2,028.4

 2,027.0

 2,026.7

 2,024.8

 2,019.9

 2,015.4

 2,014.1

 2,010.8

 2,006.7

 2,003.7

 2,001.1

STORAGE

+1.7

+8.9

+8.3

+5.9

+2.7

+7.9

+7.4

+4.8

+0.3

-0.9

-1.6

-0.7

-3.0

-4.6

-4.3

-2.1

-2.0

-4.6

-1.8

-1.1

+1.7

-1.3

-0.3

-1.9

-4.9

-4.4

-1.3

-3.3

-4.1

-3.0

-2.5

CHANGE

2,827

6,945

6,661

5,618

4,611

8,527

8,475

6,580

4,862

4,145

3,612

3,552

3,239

3,119

3,077

2,986

3,003

2,579

3,186

3,411

3,123

2,835

3,675

3,042

3,135

2,859

3,423

3,949

3,283

2,947

2,993

INFLOW

 1,979

 2,452

 2,452

 2,628

 3,229

 3,902

 4,678

 4,122

 4,681

 4,537

 4,368

 3,833

 3,947

 4,140

 4,089

 3,999

 3,946

 4,040

 4,009

 3,933

 2,251

 3,452

 3,822

 3,961

 4,040

 4,075

 4,089

 4,100

 4,179

 4,407

 4,227

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,500

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 603

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 801

 1,248

 1,085

 0

 0

 789

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,525

 993

 0

 0

 1,113

 0

 0

OUTLET

 11

 14

 0

 11

 29

 18

 65

 25

 11

 62

 36

 58

 18

 51

 47

 58

 72

 61

 76

 40

 29

 58

 22

 36

 43

 32

 7

 29

 61

 47

 50

C.F.S.

 .03

 .04

 .00

 .03

 .08

 .05

 .18

 .07

 .03

 .17

 .10

 .16

 .05

 .14

 .13

 .16

 .20

 .17

 .21

 .11

 .08

 .16

 .06

 .10

 .12

 .09

 .02

 .08

 .17

 .13

 .14

INCHES

 .02

 .80

 1.79

 .39

 .00

 .47

 1.68

 .50

 .39

 .06

 .00

 .00

 .12

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .52

 .24

 .02

 .66

 .14

 .00

 .00

 .11

 .11

 .16

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2019 NEW MELONES LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: April 1, 2019

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -4.1 126,279 117,567 1,500 8,157 1,177 3.26 8.19

ACRE-FEET -4,100 250,474 233,194 2,975 16,179 2,335

COMMENTS:

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 233,194

SPILL 2,975

OUTLET

TOTAL

 16,179

 252,348

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 8.19

JULY 1, 2018 36.74

 2,005.3

Table 13 

OCT 1, 2018 TO DATE = 36.74
# C_2012102EN.01003601.xml

| 5.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/36

---

COM documents other than legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

2012/C 102/13

| Document | Part | Date | Title |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| COM(2011) 829 | | 24.11.2011 | Communication from the Commission to the Council providing supplementary information to the Commission Report on the exception clause of 13 July 2011 |
| COM(2011) 875 | | 31.1.2012 | Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the outcome of the review of Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on priority substances in the field of water policy |
| COM(2011) 899 | | 15.12.2011 | Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — ‘Innovation for a sustainable Future — The Eco-innovation Action Plan (Eco-AP)’ |
| COM(2011) 942 | | 6.2.2012 | Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — ‧A coherent framework for building trust in the digital single market for e-commerce and online services‧ |

Document

Part

Date

Title

COM(2011) 829

24.11.2011

Communication from the Commission to the Council providing supplementary information to the Commission Report on the exception clause of 13 July 2011

COM(2011) 875

31.1.2012

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the outcome of the review of Annex X to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on priority substances in the field of water policy

COM(2011) 899

15.12.2011

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — ‘Innovation for a sustainable Future — The Eco-innovation Action Plan (Eco-AP)’

COM(2011) 942

6.2.2012

Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — ‧A coherent framework for building trust in the digital single market for e-commerce and online services‧

These texts are available on EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### Johanna BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FARMERS INSURANCE; Mid Century Insurance, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-10432.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Johanna Bell, Arlington, TX, pro se.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Johanna Bell appeals the district court’s dismissal of her civil suit without prejudice for want of service. Bell has failed to brief, and has thus abandoned, the issue whether the district court erred in determining that her suit should be dismissed due to her failure to effect service on the *650defendants. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993); *Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); *see also*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9). Consequently, Bell’s appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7256

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROOSEVELT CORNELL SANDERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-94-631, CA-02-993-0-10) Submitted: February 11, 2003 Decided: March 21, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roosevelt Cornell Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Cornell Sanders appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 , Nos. CR-94-631; CA-02-993-0-10 (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2002). 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
#### § 404.1503a Program integrity.

We will not use in our program any individual or entity, except to provide existing medical evidence, who is currently excluded, suspended, or otherwise barred from participation in the Medicare or Medicaid programs, or any other Federal or Federally-assisted program; whose license to provide health care services is currently revoked or suspended by any State licensing authority pursuant to adequate due process procedures for reasons bearing on professional competence, professional conduct, or financial integrity; or who, until a final determination is made, has surrendered such a license while formal disciplinary proceedings involving professional conduct are pending. By individual or entity we mean a medical or psychological consultant, consultative examination provider, or diagnostic test facility. Also see §§ 404.1519 and 404.1519g(b).

[56 FR 36954, Aug. 1, 1991]
### §1083. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–350, title V, §516, July 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 845

Section, act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title VIII, §833, 60 Stat. 1022, provided for retirement of non Foreign Service officers and chiefs of missions.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1976, see Pub. L. 94–350, title V, §524(a), July 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 848.
Exhibit 10.12


 


Summary Translation


 


Loan Renewal Agreement


 


(Contract No. 2018-280003240021)


 


Lender: Evergrowing Bank Co., Ltd., Yantai
Huanshan Road Branch


 


Borrower: Wuhan Kingold Jewelry Co., Ltd


 


In consideration of the mutual promises,
covenants and agreements, Borrower and Lender agree as follows:


 


1. Currency: RMB.


 


2. Loan Amount: ONE HUNDRED MILLION.


 


3. This loan shall be used for purchasing
gold only.


 


4. Renewal Term: 12 months from 10/21/2018
to 10/21/2019. This agreement is a renewal of the Loan Agreement of Circulating Funds (Evergrowing Bank No. 2016 280003240021).


 


5. Interest rate: 6.5%


 


6. Guarantees: the loan is guaranteed by
Borrower under a separate collateral pledge agreement and by Mr. Zhihong Jia under a guarantee agreement entered into by the relevant
parties thereof.


 


The remaining terms and conditions of the
loan renewal agreement are substantially identical to that of the above-referenced original agreement.


 


Date: September 28, 2018


 


/seal/ Evergrowing Bank Co., Ltd.,
Yantai Huanshan Road Branch


 


/seal/ Wuhan Kingold Jewelry Co.,
Ltd
§ 261.5 Late completion of timely investigation. ( a ) A decision may be revised after the applicable time period in § 261.2(a) or § 261.2(b) of this part expires if the Railroad Retirement Board begins an investigation into whether to revise the decision before the applicable time period expires and the agency diligently pursues the investigation to the conclusion. The investigation may be based on a request by a claimant or on action by the Railroad Retirement Board.
( b ) *Diligently pursued* for purposes of this section means that in view of the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the necessary action was undertaken and carried out as promptly as the circumstances permitted. Diligent pursuit will be presumed to have been met if the investigation is concluded and, if necessary, the decision is revised within 6 months from the date the investigation began.
( c ) If the investigation is not diligently pursued to its conclusion, the decision will be revised if a revision is applicable and if it is favorable to the claimant. It will not be revised if it would be unfavorable to the claimant.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6541

KELVIN D. SHERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES C. CACHERIS; CLAUDE M. HILTON; THOMAS S. ELLIS, III; JAMES R. SPENCER; LEONIE M. BRINKEMA; J. HARVIE WILKINSON, III; H. EMORY WIDENER, JR.; FRANCIS D. MURNAGHAN, JR.; SAM J. ERVIN, III; WILLIAM WILKINS, JR.; PAUL V. NIEMEYER; CLYDE H. HAMILTON; J. MICHAEL LUTTIG; KAREN J. WILLIAMS; M. BLANE MICHAEL; DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ; WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR.; JOHN D. BUTZNER; KENNETH K. HALL; JAMES DICKERSON PHILLIPS, JR.; ROBERT B. KING; W. NEIL HAMMERSTROM; UNKNOWN STAFF ATTORNEYS; UNKNOWN LAW CLERKS; UNKNOWN COURT CLERKS, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-99-1867) Submitted: November 20, 2000 Decided: December 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Kelvin D. Sherman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Kelvin D. Sherman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Sherman v. Cacheris , No. CA-99-1867 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2000). 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
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 14, 2011
 BLUELINX HOLDINGS INC.
  Delaware

001-32383

77-0627356(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)

(Commission File Number)

(IRS Employer Identification No.)
 4300 Wildwood Parkway,
Atlanta, Georgia

30339(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)
 (770) 953-7000
 Not applicable
 (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.)
  o

Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o

Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
  
    
    eliminates the requirement to obtain lender approval for any transfer of equity
interests that would reduce Cerberus ABP Investor LLCs ownership in the Company and
certain of its subsidiaries, directly or indirectly, to less than 51%;
    
    provides for the immediate prepayment of $38,349,062.48 of the indebtedness under the
Mortgage Agreement without incurring a prepayment premium from funds currently held as
collateral under the Mortgage Agreement and, if certain conditions are met, will allow for
an additional prepayment on or after July 30, 2014 from funds held as collateral without
incurrence of a prepayment premium;
    
    allows the Company, at the lenders reasonable discretion, to use a portion of the cash
held as collateral under the Mortgage Agreement for specified alterations, repairs,
replacements and other improvements to the mortgaged properties; and
    
    in the event certain financial conditions are met and the Company extends the Amended
and Restated Master Lease by and among certain of its subsidiaries with respect to
properties covered by the Mortgage Agreement for an additional five years, the Company may
request the lenders to disburse to the Company a portion of the cash held as collateral
under the Mortgage Agreement.
   Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
  Exhibit No.
    
    Description10.1
    
    
    Fifth Amendment to Loan and Security Agreement, dated July 14,
2011, between the entities set forth therein collectively as
borrower and U.S. Bank National Association, in its capacity as
trustee for the registered holders of Wachovia Bank Commercial
Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2006-C27, as successor in interest to German American
Capital Corporation, as Lender99.1
    
    
    Press release, dated July 14, 2011, regarding the Fifth Amendment




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  BLUELINX HOLDINGS INC.By:
    /s/ Sara E. EpsteinSara E. EpsteinSecretary
#### § 401.130 Freedom of Information Act.

The FOIA requires us to disclose any information in our records upon request from the public, unless one of several exemptions in the FOIA applies. When the FOIA requires disclosure (see part 402 of this chapter), the Privacy Act permits it. *The public* does not include Federal agencies, courts, or the Congress, but does include State agencies, individuals, corporations, and most other parties. The FOIA does not apply to requests that are not from *the public* (e.g., from a Federal agency). However, we apply FOIA principles to requests from these other sources for disclosure of program information.
§ 404.1597 After we make a determination that you are not now disabled. ( a ) *General.* If we determine that you do not meet the disability requirements of the law, your benefits generally will stop. We will send you a formal written notice telling you why we believe you are not disabled and when your benefits should stop. If your spouse and children are receiving benefits on your social security number, we will also stop their benefits and tell them why. The notices will explain your right to reconsideration if you disagree with our determination. However, your benefits may continue even though your impairment is no longer disabling, if you are participating in an appropriate program of vocational rehabilitation services, employment services, or other support services (see § 404.327). You must have started participating in the program before the date your disability ended. In addition, we must have determined that your completion of the program, or your continuation in the program for a specified period of time, will increase the likelihood that you will not have to return to the disability benefit rolls. (See §§ 404.316(c), 404.328, 404.337(c), 404.352(d), and 404.1586(g).) You may still appeal our determination that you are not disabled even though your benefits are continuing because of your participation in an appropriate program of vocational rehabilitation services, employment services, or other support services. You may also appeal a determination that your completion of the program, or your continuation in the program for a specified period of time, will not increase the likelihood that you will not have to return to the disability benefit rolls and, therefore, you are not entitled to continue to receive benefits.
( b ) *If we make a determination that your physical or mental impairment(s) has ceased, did not exist, or is no longer disabling (Medical Cessation Determination).* If we make a determination that the physical or mental impairment(s) on the basis of which benefits were payable has ceased, did not exist, or is no longer disabling (a medical cessation determination), your benefits will stop. As described in paragraph (a) of this section, you will receive a written notice explaining this determination and the month your benefits will stop. The written notice will also explain your right to appeal if you disagree with our determination and your right to request that your benefits and the benefits, if any, of your spouse or children, be continued under § 404.1597a. For the purpose of this section, *benefits* means disability cash payments and/or Medicare, if applicable. The continued benefit provisions of this section do not apply to an initial determination on an application for disability benefits, or to a determination that you were disabled only for a specified period of time.
[47 FR 31544, July 21, 1982, as amended at 51 FR 17618, May 14, 1986; 53 FR 29020, Aug. 2, 1988; 53 FR 39015, Oct. 4, 1988; 70 FR 36507, June 24, 2005]
### SUBCHAPTER II—STREAMLINING AND PROTECTING TRANSFERS OF UNITED STATES MILITARY TECHNOLOGY FROM COMPROMISE
§ 404.230 Guaranteed alternative. ( a ) *General.* If you reach age 62 after 1978 but before 1984, we compute your primary insurance amount under a modified average-monthly-wage method as a *guaranteed alternative* to your primary insurance amount computed under the average-indexed-monthly-earnings method. We also compute your primary insurance amount under the old-start method (§§ 404.240 through 404.242) and under the special rules for a person who had a period of disability (§§ 404.250 through 404.252), if you are eligible. In §§ 404.231 through 404.233, we explain the average-monthly-wage method as the alternative to the average-indexed-monthly-earnings method.
( b ) *Restrictions.* ( 1 ) To qualify for this guaranteed-alternative computation, you must have some creditable earnings before 1979.
( 2 ) You or your survivors do not qualify for a guaranteed-alternative computation if you were eligible (you attained age 62, became disabled, or died before age 62) for social security benefits based on your own earnings at any time before 1979 unless— ( i ) Those benefits were disability insurance benefits which were terminated because you recovered from your disability or you engaged in substantial gainful activity; and
( ii ) You spent at least 12 months without being eligible for disability benefits again.
( 3 ) This guaranteed alternative method applies only to old-age insurance benefits and to survivor benefits where the deceased worker reached the month of his or her 62nd birthday after 1978 but before 1984 and died after reaching age 62.