alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7195** 

KHIDHR A. ABDUL

- KHABIR , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 00488

- AWA

- TEM )

Submitted : November 19 , 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER , KING , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Khidhr A. Abdul

- Khabir, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bin ding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Khidhr A. Abdul

- Khabir seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable un less a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U .S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Abdul

- Khabir has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and d ismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy Kelley Millet, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Trust Certificates
(TRUCs), Series 2001-1 Trust;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
and

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and
the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based
upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the
trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank
Trust National Association, as trustee, and its officers and agents.




                                By: /s/ Timothy Kelley Millet
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                Name:   Timothy Kelley Millet
                                Title:  Chief Executive Officer/President,
                                        Bear Stearns Depositor Inc.
                                Date:   March 23, 2004


                                       6
----

| Month Filed | Event and Summary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | Exhibit No. |
|-------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|
|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |        |
| June, 2010  | Notice of Material Event, dated June 9, 2010, regarding the approval by the Argentine Central Bank of the acquisition by Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. (the principal subsidiary of the Registrant) of a 95% equity stake in certain Argentine corporations. | 99.1        |

----

|                    | GRUPO FINANCIERO GALICIA S.A.(Registrant) |                      |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                    |                                      |                      |   |
|                    |                                      |                      |   |
| Date: June 9, 2010 | By:                                       | /s/Pedro Alberto Richards |   |
|                    |                                      |  Name:               |  Pedro Alberto Richards |   |
|                    |                                      |  Title:              | General Manager |   |
#### Harry Edgeworth, Appellant, v. Green Bus Lines, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

In our opinion the questions of negligence and contributory negligence were questions of fact and the verdict with respect thereto was not against the weight of the evidence. However, in our opinion, the verdict was excessive. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.
#### § 3509.12 Who may apply for a future interest lease?

You may apply for a future interest lease only if you have a present interest in the minerals. You must hold more than 50 per cent of either the fee interest, a lease interest or an operating rights interest. You must also meet the qualification requirements set forth in subpart 3502 of this part.
#### § 3427.4 Pre-existing consents.

An otherwise valid written consent given by a qualified surface owner prior to August 3, 1977, shall not be required to meet the transferability of § 3427.2(d)(1) of this title.

[47 FR 33142, July 30, 1982]
### **Subchapter C—Health Benefits of Certain Miners**

Part
I.
Individual employer plans.
II.
1992 UMWA benefit plan.
#### PEOPLES SAVINGS BANK, Respondent, v. EDDY, County Treasurer, et al, Appellants.

(202 N. W. 475.)

(File No. 5435.

Opinion filed February 24, 1925.)

Appeal and Error — Moot Questions — Payment of Judgment for Partial Refund of Tax Levy, Rendered Questions, Raised on Motion to Vacate, Moot.

Payment of default judgment, requiring county treasurer to refund part of tax levied on shares of bank stock, held to render questions, raised on order denying motion 'to vacate, moot.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Codington County; Hon. W. N. Skinner, Judge.

Action by the People’s Savings Bank of Watertown against P. E. Eddy, County Treasurer, and another. Judgment for plain*126tiff. From an order denying motion to vacate, defendants appeal.

Note. — Reported in 202 N. W. 475. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and error, Key-No. 1138, 4 C. J. Sec. 3129.

Affirmed.

*Vern G.*Wohlheter, State’s Attorney, of Watertown, for Appellants.

*McFarland & Kremer,*of Watertown, for Respondent.

GATES, J.

A judgmient in this case was entered on May 7, 1923, by default,, requiring the county treasurer to repay to respondent the difference between a three-mill tax levy and the amount actually levied on the shares of stock in plaintiff bank. The case was similar in its nature to that of First Nat. Bank v. Eddy, 47 S. D. 233, 197 N. W. 290; Id.47 S. D. 297, 198 N. W. 554. On May 9, 1923, defendants obtained an order to show cause why the judgment should not be vacated returnable May 14, 1923. On May 19, 1923, the trial court entered an order denying the motion of defendants of vacate the judgment. On May 22, 1923, the judgment was paid and satisfied. On June 18, 1923, defendants perfected an appeal to this court from the order denying the motion to vacate the judgment.

By reason of the payment of the judgment, the questions before us have become moot.

The order appealed from, is affirmed.
§ 3599.1 Late payment or underpayment charges. ( a ) The failure to make timely or proper payments of any monies due pursuant to leases, permits, and contracts subject to these regulations will result in the collection by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the amount past due plus a late payment charge. Exceptions to this late payment charge may be granted when estimated payments have already been made timely and otherwise in accordance with instructions provided by MMS to the payor. However, late payment charges assessed with respect to any Indian lease, permit, or contract shall be collected and paid to the Indian or tribe to which the overdue amount is owed.
( b ) Late payment charges are assessed on any late payment or underpayment from the date that the payment was due until the date on which the payment is received in the appropriate MMS accounting office. Payments received after 4 p.m. local time on the date due will be acknowledged as received on the following workday.
( c ) Late payment charges are calculated on the basis of a percentage assessment rate. In the absence of a specific lease, permit, license, or contract provision prescribing a different rate, this percentage assessment rate is prescribed by the Department of the Treasury as the “Treasury Current Value of Funds Rate.”
( d ) This rate is available in the Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletins that are published prior to the first day of each calendar quarter for application to overdue payments or underpayments in that new calendar quarter. The rate is also published in the Notices section of the Federal Register and indexed under “Fiscal Service/Notices/Funds Rate; Treasury Current Value.”
( e ) Late payment charges apply to all underpayments and payments received after the date due. These charges include rentals; production, minimum, or advance royalties; assessments for liquidated damages; administrative fees and payments by purchaser of royalty taken-in-kind or any other payments, fees, or assessments that a lessee/operator/permittee/payor/or purchaser of royalty taken-in-kind is required to pay by a specified date. The failure to pay past due amounts, including late payment charges, will result in the initiation of other enforcement proceedings.
[47 FR 22528, May 25, 1982. Redesignated at 48 FR 36588, Aug. 12, 1983. Redesignated at 51 FR 15212, Apr. 22, 1986]
Group 3600—Mineral Materials Disposal

Note:
The information collection requirements contained in parts 3600, 3610 and 3620 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* and assigned clearance number 1004-0103. The information is being collected to allow the authorized officer to determine if the applicant is qualified to purchase or have free use of mineral materials on the public lands. The obligation to respond is required to obtain a benefit.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10136 Summary Calendar

RICK AUSTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CITY OF GLENN HEIGHTS, ET AL, Defendants, CITY OF GLENN HEIGHTS, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-1720-G

- - - - - - - - - - February 12, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rick Austin appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f). for failing to file timely a joint status report. The district court’s order does not indicate whether the judgment was with or without prejudice; nevertheless, since the order does not indicate that the dismissal is without prejudice, it is deemed an adjudication on the merits. See Callip v. Harris County ChildNo. 98-10136 -2- Welfare Dept. , 757 F.2d 1513, 1519 (5th Cir. 1985)(Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) case). The district court did not consider alternatives to dismissing Austin’s claim; therefore, the district court’s order is VACATED, and Austin’s case is REMANDED to determine whether a lesser sanction would serve the interests of justice. See SEC v. First Houston Capital Resources Fund , 979 F.2d 380, 381-82 (5th Cir. 1992). VACATED and REMANDED.
No. 69510 

# FILED APR 1 4 2016 TRACE K. UNDPMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT DEYU e rY t etM STANLEY EARNEST RIMER, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent. BY 

## c-

, J. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA



### ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks an order directing the district court to reverse a decision to deny a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion to file an oversized postconviction brief, and a motion to extend the prison copy limit. We have considered the documents submitted in this matter, and we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction.' 

### See NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED. 2

Cherry Douglas
J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 'We note that while there is no page limit established by statute for

a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 

### see NRS 34.735, permission to file supplemental pleadings is discretionary, 

### see NRS 34.750(5). A person seeking habeas relief need not attach copies of documents already part of the record to the petition. 

### See NRS 34.735.

2 We received a number of pro se motions and documents, and we deny the relief requested.

(DI 1947A ec. 1 b-P7 4 1cc: Hon. Douglas Herndon, District Judge Stanley Earnest Rimer Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1547A (ero
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 97-60774 Conference Calendar

__________________ MABROOR AHMED KHAN, Petitioner,
versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A73 725 254

- - - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mabroor Ahmed Khan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum and for a withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS ,No. -2- 78 F.3d 194 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The petition for review is DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50654 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALBERTO MORALES-MARTINEZ, also known as Jorge Sanchez Flores, also known as Aron Sanchez, also known as Aaron Sanchez, also known as Jorge Silva, also known as Jorge S. Landeros, also known as Jorge Flores Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-02-CR-660-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Alberto Morales-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Morales-Martinez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an elementNo. 03-50654 -2- of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Morales-Martinez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Morales-Martinez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
§ 2711.2 Qualified conveyees. Tracts sold under this part may only be conveyed to: ( a ) A citizen of the United States 18 years of age or over;
( b ) A corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States;
( c ) A State, State instrumentality or political subdivision authorized to hold property; and
( d ) An entity legally capable of conveying and holding lands or interests therein under the laws of the State within which the lands to be conveyed are located. Where applicable, the entity shall also meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
[45 FR 39418, June 10, 1980, as amended at 49 FR 29015, July 17, 1984]
### §1462. Withheld tax as credit to recipient of income

Income on which any tax is required to be withheld at the source under this chapter shall be included in the return of the recipient of such income, but any amount of tax so withheld shall be credited against the amount of income tax as computed in such return.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 360.)
Orlyplein 50
1043 DP Amsterdam
P.O. Box 58110
1040 HC Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Telephone +31 (20) 5824000
Telefax +31 (20) 5824024


Date                                    From                      Our reference
April 9, 2002
Subject                                                           Your reference
Independent auditors' consent


We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements of
Koninklijke Ahold N.V. on Form F-3 and Form S-3 (No. 333-52934, No.
333-52934-01, No. 333-80245 and No. 333-80245-01) and on Form S-8 (No.
333-10044, No. 333-09774 and No. 333-70636) of our report dated March 7, 2002
(March 13, 2002 as to Note 20, March 22, 2002 as to Note 26) appearing in the
annual report on Form 20-F of Koninklijke Ahold N.V. for the year ended December
30, 2001.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche, Accountants
Amsterdam, The Netherlands





                              All agreements with Deloitte & Touche are governed
                              by the General Terms and Conditions of Deloitte &
                              Touche, registered with the District Court of
                              Rotterdam under deed number 115/97.

                              Deloitte & Touche Accountants is a Partnership of
                              private (professional) companies.
#### Thomas Smith v. James T. Haverty’s Stables.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### § 37.2 Policy.

It is the policy of the Secretary that Federal lands be managed in a manner which, to the extent practical, protects and maintains significant caves and cave resources. The type and degree of protection will be determined through the agency resource management planning process with full public participation.
§ 3171.10 Operator certification. ( a ) The operator must include its name, address, and telephone number, and the same information for its field representative, in the APD package.
( b ) The following certification must carry the operator's original signature or be submitted to the BLM using the BLM's electronic reporting system: I hereby certify that I, or someone under my direct supervision, have inspected the drill site and access route proposed herein; that I am familiar with the conditions which currently exist; that I have full knowledge of state and Federal laws applicable to this operation; that the statements made in this APD package are, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct; and that the work associated with the operations proposed herein will be performed in conformity with this APD package and the terms and conditions under which it is approved. I also certify that I, or the company I represent, am responsible for the operations conducted under this application. These statements are subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001 for the filing of false statements. Executed this _ day of ___, 20__. Name Position Title Address Telephone Field representative (if not above signatory) Address (if different from above) Telephone (if different from above) Email (optional)
( c ) Agents not directly employed by the operator must submit a letter from the operator authorizing that agent to act or file this application on their behalf.
#### § 3430.0-1 Purpose.

These regulations set forth procedures for processing noncompetitive (preference right) coal lease applications on Federal lands.