alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-41010

Summary Calendar

HAROLD FREDERICK KRUEGER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

VERSUS

W.F. WOODS,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(CR-C-95-494)

March 28, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Appellant, a federal prisoner, sued pro se under 28 U.S.C. §

2241 alleging that legal materials, including a pro se motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255, were wilfully confiscated from him and

negligently misplaced thereby obstructing his access to the courts

and rendering his continued incarceratio n unconstitutional. The

district court dismissed. We affirm.2

Appellant’s legal materials were wilfully confiscated in

connection with his transfer from one institution to another.

Marshals took the legal papers from him and they were thereafter

inadvertently misplaced.

We construe the dismissal as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d) because Defendants were not served with the complaint prior

to dismissal.

Appellant’s complaint does not challenge the legality of his

conviction or the validity of his sentence and he is, therefore,

not entitled to relief under § 2255. See United States v. Gabor

,

905 F.2d 76, 77-78 (5th Cir. 1990). Claims which attack the manner

in which a se ntence is executed are proper under § 2441. U nited

States v. Cleto

, 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992). But relief under

this section is available only if custody is in violation of the

constitution or laws of the United States. Appellant has not shown

that he is in custody in violation of the constitution or laws of

the United States and, therefore, denial of relief under § 2241 was

appropriate.

The district court did not address Appellant’s claim that he

was denied access to the courts. Since he is a federal prisoner,

and the defendants are federal, not state actors, such claim could

be brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Name d Agents of the

Federal Bureau of Narcotics

, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The flaw in

Appellant’s denial of access argument, however, is that, while

confiscation of the materials was willing, it was the inadvertent3

loss of those materials which deprived him of access to the courts.

To constitute a constitutional deprivation the impairment of access

must be deliberate. J ackson v. Procunier

, 789 F.2d 307, 310-11

(5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Appellant has failed to state a

claim for denial of access to the courts.

AFFIRMED.
### §3649. Applicability of certain benefits

Chapter 81 of title 5, relating to compensation for work injuries, chapters 83 and 84 of such title 5, relating to retirement, chapter 87 of such title 5, relating to life insurance, and chapter 89 of such title 5, relating to health insurance, are applicable to Commission employees, except any individual—

(1) who is not a citizen of the United States;

(2) whose initial appointment by the Commission occurs after October 1, 1979; and

(3) who is covered by the Social Security System of the Republic of Panama pursuant to any provision of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements.

(Pub. L. 96–70, title I, §1209, Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 463; Pub. L. 104–201, div. C, title XXXV, §3527, Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2861.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–201 substituted "Applicability of certain benefits" for "Inapplicability of certain benefits to certain noncitizens" in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text was comprised of subsec. (a) of section 1209 of Pub. L. 96–70 which read as follows: "Chapter 81 of title 5, relating to compensation for work injuries, chapter 83 of such title 5, relating to civil service retirement, chapter 87 of such title 5, relating to life insurance, and chapter 89 of such title 5, relating to health insurance, are inapplicable to any individual—

"(1) who is not a citizen of the United States;

"(2) whose initial appointment by the Commission occurs after October 1, 1979; and

"(3) who is covered by the Social Security System of the Republic of Panama pursuant to any provision of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 and related agreements."

Prior to amendment, section 1209 also contained subsecs. (b) and (c) which amended sections 8701 and 8901 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00029-CV

JESSE REYNOLDS, Appellant

V.

LEROY MORGAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court

Titus County, Texas

Trial Court No. C02990

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jesse Reynolds, appellant, filed a notice of appeal in this matter on April 15, 2021. 

Appellant has not filed a docketing statement in accordance with Rule 32.1 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. Further, appellant has not tendered the 

mandatory $205.00 filing fee associated with the appeal, see TEX. R. APP. P. 5, and has not filed 

proof of indigency in lieu of a filing fee, see TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. 

“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay—at the 

time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court 

order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just.” TEX. R. APP. P. 5. 

By letter dated May 17, 2021, appellant was provided with notice of and an opportunity 

to cure these defects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). The May 17 letter further warned

appellant that, if he did not submit an adequate response to the notice by May 27, 2021, this 

appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution and for failure to comply with the 

above-cited rules. Appellant did not file a docketing statement, did not pay the mandatory filing 

fee, and did not file proof of indigency in lieu of a filing fee. Further, we have received no 

communication from appellant responsive to the May 17 correspondence. Accordingly, this 

appeal is ripe for dismissal. 
3

Pursuant to Rule 42.3, subsections (b) and (c), of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: July 1, 2021

Date Decided: July 2, 2021
### §3427. Definitions

As used in this subchapter—

(1) the term "Multinational Force and Observers" means the Multinational Force and Observers established in accordance with the Protocol between Egypt and Israel signed on August 3, 1981, relating to the implementation of the security arrangements of the Treaty of Peace; and

(2) the term "Treaty of Peace" means the Treaty of Peace between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Israel signed on March 26, 1979, including the Annexes thereto.

(Pub. L. 97–132, §8, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1697.)
## SLOVT-3D SLOVT-35 SLOvr-4D SLDVT-45

Large Cover Photo: SLDVT-40 shown with Traditional Red refractory liner.



# ©Lennox Industries Inc. 2009 Visit us at www.lennox.com. or contact us at 1-800-9-lENNOX. 785259M 11-09 

# j).
FSC Mixed Sources (.,tno.S(S<0(-001182 O,S9UK 

# STANDARD FEATURES Dramatic louverless design Flex connector with shut off and connecting pipe nipple Wiring for optional wall switch Millivolt (standing pilot) or electronic ignition with battery back-up Rugged oak-style logs, burning embers and lava rock Variable hi/lo valve (millivolt models only) Sealed tempered glass panel Controls hidden in low profile access compartment Top vent only models using Security**Chimneys~** 

# 4.5"-7.5" Secure**Vent~** 

# and Secure-flex'" vent systems with up to 

# 60' vertical and 20' horizontal allowed 20-year limited warranty 

# OPTIONAL FEATURES Screen panel kits* Pull Screen front panel kits Style View'" Doors, Arched and Square Pane, in Black and Satin Pewter finishes Ceramic fiber refractory liners -Traditional Buff and Traditional Red Wireless remotes including thermostatically controlled versions Forced-air blower kits

SLOVT-JS shown w,lh AIdIed pane Satin PewterStyfe View'- daa". SLOVT-JS shawn wilf1 Screenpanelkit.

SLOVT-JS shown with Pull Screen front SLOVT·4S shown with Square pane Black panel kit and Traditional Buff refractory liner Style ViewTM Doors and Traditional Buff refractory liner • Screenpanelkit provides a bamerto prevent direct contact**w~h** hotglass surface IMPORTANTNOTES: 

### As with any heating appliance, fireplace 

### or stove, this appliance is extremely hot during operation. Read and understand all operating instructions before using this appliance. For further information, consult yourdealer. Local**cond~;ons~** such as elevation, Wk14 vent configuration andchoice offuel WillaffectoverallappealtIflce of

### the fire andheatingpetiorrnance. Performance 

### can also vary w;rh home design andinsulation, dimate. condition andtype of 

### fuel useq appliance location, bum rate. accessories chosen. chimneyinstallation andhow the appliance is operated. Diagrams, ilfustrations andphotographs are not to scale

- consult installation instructions. Product designs, materials, dimensions, specifICationS, calaIS andprices are subject to change ordiscontinuance without notice.
Built to ANSI Z21.88 and CSA 2.33**~and"d.** Consult your distributor far looal fireplace code infOfmalion.



### Tested". Portland Usted By 

### Orogon USA 

### C US OMNI-Test Labar.tarles, Inc.



### aTL 

### Report No. 116-F-50-5 Lookfor the BnerGulde Gas Fireplace Energy Efficiency Rating In this brochure
§ 679.420 What are the functions of the local fiscal agent? ( a ) In order to assist in administration of the grant funds, the chief elected official or the Governor, where the Governor serves as the local grant recipient for a local area, may designate an entity to serve as a local fiscal agent. Designation of a fiscal agent does not relieve the chief elected official or Governor of liability for the misuse of grant funds. If the CEO designates a fiscal agent, the CEO must ensure this agent has clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
( b ) In general the fiscal agent is responsible for the following functions: ( 1 ) Receive funds.
( 2 ) Ensure sustained fiscal integrity and accountability for expenditures of funds in accordance with Office of Management and Budget circulars, WIOA and the corresponding Federal Regulations and State policies.
( 3 ) Respond to audit financial findings.
( 4 ) Maintain proper accounting records and adequate documentation.
( 5 ) Prepare financial reports.
( 6 ) Provide technical assistance to subrecipients regarding fiscal issues.
( c ) At the direction of the Local WDB or the State WDB in single-area States, the fiscal agent may have the following additional functions: ( 1 ) Procure contracts or obtain written agreements.
( 2 ) Conduct financial monitoring of service providers.
( 3 ) Ensure independent audit of all employment and training programs.
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

 3,900

 3,471

 3,982

 4,403

 4,165

 4,049

 3,809

 4,292

 3,890

 3,781

 4,413

 4,520

 5,245

 4,290

 5,133

 4,577

 3,377

 3,642

 3,647

 3,554

 2,698

 2,951

 3,574

 3,022

 2,998

 3,572

 3,928

 4,956

 4,552

 3,657

 3,850

 95,000

 93,955

 92,555

 91,710

 91,307

 90,699

 90,010

 89,128

 88,749

 88,007

 87,199

 87,031

 86,974

 87,608

 87,303

 87,814

 87,772

 86,591

 85,721

 84,900

 84,031

 82,393

 81,077

 80,418

 79,268

 78,153

 77,639

 77,488

 78,322

 78,730

 78,268

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2006 SHASTA LAKE FLOOD CONTROL REQUIREMENTS RUN DATE: February 7, 2007

 98,900

 97,426

 96,537

 96,113

 95,472

 94,748

 93,819

 93,420

 92,639

 91,788

 91,612

 91,551

 92,219

 91,898

 92,436

 92,391

 91,149

 90,233

 89,368

 88,454

 86,729

 85,344

 84,651

 83,440

 82,266

 81,725

 81,567

 82,444

 82,874

 82,387

 82,118

 4,531,000

 4,509,000

 4,488,000

 4,467,000

 4,445,000

 4,424,000

 4,403,000

 4,382,000

 4,360,000

 4,339,000

 4,318,000

 4,296,000

 4,275,000

 4,254,000

 4,232,000

 4,211,000

 4,190,000

 4,168,000

 4,147,000

 4,126,000

 4,104,000

 4,083,000

 4,062,000

 4,041,000

 4,019,000

 3,998,000

 3,977,000

 3,955,000

 3,934,000

 3,913,000

 3,891,000

 SHASTA

 INFLOW 

C. F. S. 

 PREV DAY

 F. C. PAR 

 (COL 3) 

 F. C. 

 PARAM 

 (COLS. 

 1 + 2 ) 

 .0356* 

 X DAYS 

 12/23 THRU

3/20 

 530,000

 MINUS 

 F. C. 

 PARAM

 COLS 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (1,300,000 

 - COL 6 ) 

 MINUS 

 14,943 

 PER DAY 

 AFTER 

 ADJUSTED 

 F. C. 

 RESERV 

 (7-8) 

 PERM 

 STORAGE 

 COMMENTS:

 * LEAP YEAR CONSTANT = .0352 

 CONSTANT .0356 = 1,300,000 / (TOTAL DAYS X (530,000 - 110,000 ) )

 IF COL 3 IS GREATER THAN 530,000 OR LESS THAN 110,000 USE THOSE VALUES FOR COL 3 INSTEAD OF THE COMPUTED VALUE. 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 100,000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1550

PHILLIP MIZRACH, as Successor Personal Representative of the 

Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, Deceased,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-1551

PHILLIP MIZRACH, as Successor Personal Representative of the 

Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, Deceased,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:11-cv-01153-RDB; 1:08-cv-02030-AMD)

Submitted: March 1, 2017 Decided: March 9, 2017
2

Before TRAXLER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Mizrach, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United 

States Attorney, Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Mizrach appeals the district court’s orders denying 

several postjudgment motions he filed following the dismissal of 

two Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2012)

complaints. We have reviewed the record included on appeal and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Mizrach v. United States, Nos. 1:11-

cv-01153-RDB; 1:08-cv-02030-AMD (D. Md. Nov. 12, 2015; Apr. 13, 

2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-39930

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

EUGENIO IBARRA,

Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY

Drew D. Tatum, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

Michael J. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Santa Fe, NM

Mark A. Peralta-Silva, Assistant Appellate Defender

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Chief Judge.

{1} Defendant appeals his convictions of multiple counts of aggravated assault on a 

peace officer and one count of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer. This 

Court’s first notice of proposed summary disposition proposed to affirm the judgment of 

the district court and Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to that disposition, 

asserting that the State had failed to present evidence regarding one victim’s status as 

a law enforcement officer. This Court then issued a second notice, proposing to vacate 
one of Defendant’s convictions of aggravated assault on a peace officer. Defendant has 

filed a second memorandum, supporting that reversal but continuing to oppose the 

affirmance of his remaining convictions. With regard to those convictions, we remain 

unpersuaded that the district court erred. We, therefore, affirm those convictions for the 

reasons discussed in our second notice of proposed summary disposition. 

{2} With regard to the aggravated assault charges appearing as Count 2 in the 

complaint, the State has filed a notice that it does not intend to oppose this Court’s 

proposed reversal. Accordingly, we reverse and vacate Defendant’s conviction with 

regard to Count 2, but affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court with regard 

to Defendant’s remaining convictions.

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge
Exhibit
      31.1




CERTIFICATION




I,
      James
      G. Reindl, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2006,
      of
      Techprecision Corporation;




2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible
      for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
      in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we
      have:




a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
      by this report based on such evaluation; and




c)
      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have
      disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
      financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the
      registrant’s board of directors:




a)
      all
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and




b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.




Dated: August 1, 2006
            
            /s/ James G. ReindlJames
                G. Reindl
              Chief
                Executive Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 655

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 655 appear at 71 FR 35521, 35522, June 21, 2006.

#### § 655.850 Who has custody of the administrative record?

The official record of every completed administrative hearing procedure provided by subparts H and I of this part shall be maintained and filed under the custody and control of the Chief Administrative Law Judge. Upon receipt of a complaint seeking review of the final agency action in a United States District Court, the Chief Administrative Law Judge shall certify the official record and shall transmit such record to the clerk of the court.
<page>   EXHIBIT 32.02


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 Dean Witter Cornerstone
Fund II (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey D. Hahn,
Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 operations of the Partnership.







By:  /s/Jeffrey D. Hahn

Name:	   Jeffrey D. Hahn
Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Date:	May 17, 2004
### §4713. Latin American exchanges

Of any funds authorized to be appropriated for activities authorized by this chapter, not less than 25 percent shall be allocated to fund grants and exchanges to Latin America and the Caribbean.

(Pub. L. 99–93, title VI, §613, Aug. 16, 1985, 99 Stat. 444.)
### **CHAPTER 10—HEMISPHERAL RELATIONS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERALLY

Sec.
501.
Utilization of services of Government agencies to promote inter-American relations.
502.
Creation of advisory committees.
503.
Facilitating work of foreign traveling salesmen; licenses and certificates of identification.
504.
Transfer of hemisphere territory from one non-American power to another; recognition; consultation with American Republics.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—WAR MATERIALS

521.
Military and naval assistance to governments of American Republics.
522.
Transmission of information pertaining to implements of war, vessels, etc.
523.
Restriction in contracts against disposal of implements of war, vessels, etc., or information.
524.
Information on shipments to be given Chairman of National Munitions Control Board.
525.
Appropriations and disposition of receipts.
526.
Protection of patent rights.
527.
Purchases of implements of war, etc., from American Republics.