alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bill Dean BYRD, Defendant—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee.

No. 05-7981.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 6, 2006.

*802Bill Dean Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Bill Dean Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is 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 his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40035

Summary Calendar

PHILLIP DAVID HASKETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CAPITAL LAND SERVICES, INCORPORATED, also known as CLS Group; 

JASON WALKER; MATT TIPTON,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CV-279

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Phillip David Haskett appeals the summary judgment dismissal of his 

complaint. He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his motions for extensions of time to complete discovery and respond 

to the summary judgment motion. See Am. Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus 

v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887, 894 (5th Cir. 2013); Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 30, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40035 Document: 00513777768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2016
No. 16-40035

2

Connecticut, 465 F.3d 156, 161 (5th Cir. 2006). By failing to raise his claims of 

error in the district court, he waived review of his arguments that the district 

court erred in granting summary judgment without further notice and 

considered inadmissible evidence. See Celanese Corp. v. Martin K. Eby Const. 

Co., 620 F.3d 529, 531 (5th Cir. 2010); Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling & Expl. Co., 

974 F.2d 646, 650 n.3 (5th Cir. 1992).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40035 Document: 00513777768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2016
#### § 35.25 Fees.

The party requesting a subpoena shall pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in U.S. District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage shall accompany the subpoena when served, except that when a subpoena is issued on behalf of the Department, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

 

CERTIFICATIONOF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officerof Gladstone Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the datehereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofThe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended September 30, 2004 (“Form 10-K”), filed concurrently herewith by theCompany, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: December 14, 2004

 
|                    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| /s/ David Gladstone     |   |
| David Gladstone         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

 

 

----
#### New York Towers, Inc., v. Lillian Sloane, Inc.

Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 652.]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 59302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34541]


Spokane County, WA, Division of Engineering and Roads--
Acquisition Exemption--The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway 
Company

    Spokane County, Division of Engineering and Roads (Spokane), a 
Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 
49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire from The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 
Railway Company (BNSF), a line of railroad known as the Geiger Spur 
from milepost 1493.95, on its Columbia River Subdivision, to milepost 
4.93, on the Geiger Spur, a total distance of 4.93 miles.
    This transaction is related to a verified notice of exemption in 
STB Finance Docket No. 34546, Western Rail Switching, Incorporated--
Operation Exemption--Rail Line of Spokane County, WA, wherein Western 
Rail Switching, Incorporated seeks to operate the line being acquired 
by Spokane.
    Spokane certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not exceed $5 million, and the transaction will 
not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II rail carrier.
    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on October 1, 2004.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34541, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on Martin Rollins, Spokane County 
Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Civil Division, 1115 West Broadway 
Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: September 24, 2004.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-22340 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
§ 41.445 Marital or parental status. ( a ) *Status generally.* A recipient shall not apply any rule concerning a student's actual or potential parental, family, or marital status that treats students differently on the basis of sex.
( b ) *Pregnancy and related conditions.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not discriminate against any student, or exclude any student from its education program or activity, including any class or extracurricular activity, on the basis of such student's pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, unless the student requests voluntarily to participate in a separate portion of the program or activity of the recipient.
( 2 ) A recipient may require such a student to obtain the certification of a physician that the student is physically and emotionally able to continue participation as long as such a certification is required of all students for other physical or emotional conditions requiring the attention of a physician.
( 3 ) A recipient that operates a portion of its education program or activity separately for pregnant students, admittance to which is completely voluntary on the part of the student as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, shall ensure that the separate portion is comparable to that offered to non-pregnant students.
( 4 ) Subject to § 41.235(d), a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy and recovery therefrom in the same manner and under the same policies as any other temporary disability with respect to any medical or hospital benefit, service, plan, or policy that such recipient administers, operates, offers, or participates in with respect to students admitted to the recipient's educational program or activity.
( 5 ) In the case of a recipient that does not maintain a leave policy for its students, or in the case of a student who does not otherwise qualify for leave under such a policy, a recipient shall treat pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, and recovery therefrom as a justification for a leave of absence for as long a period of time as is deemed medically necessary by the student's physician, at the conclusion of which the student shall be reinstated to the status that she held when the leave began.
January 14, 2014 

Mr. Pierre Doyon 

4985 Rainbow Gulch Trail 

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80924 

Dear Mr. Doyon: 

This is in response to your November 29, 2013 letter sent to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2013-1022) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to amend the 

“Age 65” rule to include part 91, Subpart K and part 135 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). 

As you have pointed out, the FAA raised the maximum age for pilots involved in 

part 121 operations in conjunction with changes adopted by the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) and as directed by the U.S. Congress in the Fair Treatment for 

Experienced Pilots Act. Your proposal to apply this age limit to pilots operating under parts 

91, Subpart K and 135 would differ from the current purview of the “Age 65” rule in two 

aspects. First, there is currently no age restriction for pilots operating under parts 91, Subpart 

K and 135, so your proposal would be an enactment of an age ceiling where there was none, 

as opposed to “loosening” an established age ceiling in the “Age 65” rule. Secondly, neither 

Congress, in its oversight of aviation safety, nor the ICAO has expressed a need to establish 

an age ceiling for pilots operating under parts 91, Subpart K or 135. It has been the FAA’s 

policy to mirror ICAO standards unless a safety issue warrants filing a difference from ICAO 

practices. 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73, the FAA must use the following criteria when making a 

decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for 

rulemaking: 

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 

2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 

3) The resources the FAA has available to address these issues. 

The FAA would be happy to examine the feasibility of extending the “Age 65” rule to 

encompass pilots operating under parts 91, Subpart K and 135 if sufficient data were to 
2

become available indicating that this group of pilots is disproportionately involved in 

accidents and incidents. 

Therefore, in absence of this data, the FAA will take no further action on this petition, and 

Docket No. FAA-2013-1022 is being closed. If I can be of further assistance to you, please 

feel free to contact the office of Flight Standards Services at (202) 267-8166. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Leslie H. Smith 

Manager, Air Transportation Division 

 Flight Standards Service
# OUTPUT A-3B

Schedule A-3BPage &P of &N
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          41,531
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  600,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (11,109)
<INVENTORY>                                    632,685
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,370,714
<PP&E>                                      21,092,457
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,416,816)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,046,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,938,983
<BONDS>                                      1,464,707
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    26,104,092
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,461,427)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,046,355
<SALES>                                      1,949,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,949,542
<CGS>                                        1,668,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,668,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,100,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,735,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,735,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,735,362)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.052)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.052)
        

</TABLE>
§ 2711.3-3 Direct sales. ( a ) Direct sales (without competition) may be utilized, when in the opinion of the authorized officer, a competitive sale is not appropriate and the public interest would best be served by a direct sale. Examples include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) A tract identified for transfer to State or local government or nonprofit organization; or
( 2 ) A tract identified for sale that is an integral part of a project or public importance and speculative bidding would jeopardize a timely completion and economic viability of the project; or
( 3 ) There is a need to recognize an authorized use such as an existing business which could suffer a substantial economic loss if the tract were purchased by other than the authorized user; or
( 4 ) The adjoining ownership pattern and access indicate a direct sale is appropriate; or
( 5 ) A need to resolve inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy of the lands.
( b ) Once the authorized officer has determined that the lands will be offered by direct sale and such determination has been issued, published and sent in accordance with procedures of this part, payment shall be made by the same instruments as authorized in § 2711.3-1(c) of this subpart.
( c ) Failure to accept an offer to purchase the offered lands within the time specified by the authorized officer shall constitute a waiver of this preference consideration.
( d ) Acceptance or rejection of an offer to purchase the lands shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 2711.3-1 (f) and (g) of this subpart.
[49 FR 29015, July 17, 1984; 49 FR 29796, July 24, 1984]
§ 4.1391 Who may file; where to file; when to file; filing of administrative record. ( a ) The person who requested a determination under 30 CFR 761.16 or any person with an interest that is or may be adversely affected by a determination that a person does or does not have valid existing rights may file a request for review of the determination with the office of the OSM official whose determination is being reviewed and at the same time shall send a copy of the request to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior. OSM shall file the complete administrative record of the determination under review with the Board as soon as practicable.
( b ) OSM must provide notice of the valid existing rights determination to the person who requested that determination by certified mail, or by overnight delivery service if the person has agreed to bear the expense of this service. ( 1 ) When the determination is made independently of a decision on an application for a permit or for a permit boundary revision, a request for review shall be filed within 30 days of receipt of the determination by a person who has received a copy of it by certified mail or overnight delivery service. The request for review shall be filed within 30 days of the date of publication of the determination in a newspaper of general circulation or in the Federal Register, whichever is later, by any person who has not received a copy of it by certified mail or overnight delivery service.
( 2 ) When the determination is made in conjunction with a decision on an application for a permit or for a permit boundary revision, the request for review must be filed in accordance with § 4.1362.
( c ) Failure to file a request for review within the time specified in paragraph (b) of this section shall constitute a waiver of the right to review and the request shall be dismissed.
[56 FR 2145, Jan. 22, 1991, as amended at 67 FR 4368, Jan. 30, 2002; 67 FR 61512, Oct. 1, 2002; 88 FR 5796, Jan. 30, 2023]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service

# AGENCY:

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission (the Commission) will be held on Friday, October 15, 2004, at Rockwood Manor, 11001 MacArthur Blvd., Potomac, Maryland. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m.

Items on the agenda include the Georgetown University boathouse, planning initiatives, construction and development projects and park operational issues.

The meeting will be open to the public. Any person may file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Persons who wish to file a written statement or testify at the meeting or who want further information concerning the meeting may contact Superintendent Kevin Brandt at (301) 714-2201.

# DATES:

October 15, 2004, at 9 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

11001 MacArthur Blvd., Potomac, Maryland 20854.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Superintendent Kevin Brandt, (301)  714-2201.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Commission was established by                     *Public Law 91-664*                     to meet and consult with the Secretary of the Interior on general policies and specific matters related to the administration and development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.                

Members of the Commission are: Mrs. Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld, Chairman,  Mr. Charles J. Weir, Mr. Barry A. Passett, Mr. Terry W. Hepburn, Ms. Elise B. Heinz, Ms. JoAnn M. Spevacek, Mrs. Mary E. Woodward, Mrs. Donna Printz, Mrs. Ferial S. Bishop, Ms. Nancy C. Long, Mrs. Jo Reynolds, Dr. James H. Gilford,  Brother James Kirkpatrick.

Dated: September 14, 2004.

Kevin Brandt,

Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

[FR Doc. 04-22567  Filed 10-6-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-JK-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000894738
<NAME>                        INTERNET COMMERCE CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          21,921,366
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      348,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,473,805
<PP&E>                                           1,733,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                     809,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,825,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,545,044
<BONDS>                                            288,439
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            109
<COMMON>                                            62,755
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,929,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,825,800
<SALES>                                            768,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   768,823
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,960,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45,864
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,818,306)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,818,306)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,818,306)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (2.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (2.68)


</TABLE>
California Department of Fish and Game

Note: Quantities shown below are acre-feet of water

 Source of Level 2 Sources of Incremental

Refuge Level 21 Water Supplies Incremental Level 42 Level 4 Water Supply Total Level 43

Water Supplies Contract Non-Project Water Supplies Contract Replacement Supplies

Gray Lodge 35,400 16,559 18,84158,600 8,60040 44,000

1

 Quantity as defined in Article 1(i) of this Contract

2

 Quantity as defined in Article 1(h) of this Contract 

3 Quantity as defined in Article 1(j) of this Contract

4

 To be acquired in accordance with Article 3(a) of this Contract

5 Quantity from Biggs-West Gridley WD: 6949 ac. ft. for Primary Land and 3936 ac. ft. for Secondary Lands plus

 State Water Project Surplus Water: 5079 ac. ft. for Primary Land and 2877 ac. ft. for Secondary Land

Note: Reclamation & CDFG will partner/explore conjunctive use.

DRAFT 11/15/00