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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7334

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANK TERALD HOGUE, II,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:15-cr-00037-WO-2; 1:16-cv01079-WO-LPA)

Submitted: June 27, 2019 Decided: July 26, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Terald Hogue, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Frank Terald Hogue, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended 

that relief be denied and advised Hogue that the failure to file timely, specific objections 

to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon 

the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. United States v. 

Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Although Hogue filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has 

waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Midgette, 478 F.3d at 622 (holding 

that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to 

the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to 

alert the district court of the true ground for the objection”). Accordingly, we deny Hogue’s 

motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 13.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Bayer AG(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:     The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 of the Companyfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: March 6, 2006 /s/ Werner Wenning   Name:  Werner Wenning   Title:  Chairman of the Board of Management      Dated: March 6, 2006 /s/ Klaus Kühn   Name:  Klaus Kühn   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
#### § 107.565 Restrictions on third-party debt of Early Stage SBICs.

If you are an Early Stage SBIC and you have outstanding Leverage or a Leverage commitment, you must get SBA's prior written approval to have, incur, or refinance any third-party debt other than accounts payable from routine business operations.

[77 FR 25052, Apr. 27, 2012]
§ 30.217 How is a deposition taken? ( a ) The witness to be deposed must appear before the judge or before an officer authorized to administer oaths by the laws of the United States or by the laws of the place of the examination, as specified in: ( 1 ) The judge's order under § 30.216(c); or
( 2 ) The stipulation of the parties under § 30.216(a)(1).
( b ) The witness must be examined under oath or affirmation and subject to cross-examination. The witness's testimony must be recorded by the officer or someone in the officer's presence.
( c ) When the testimony is fully transcribed, it must be submitted to the witness for examination and must be read to or by him or her, unless examination and reading are waived. ( 1 ) Any changes in form or substance that the witness desires to make must be entered on the transcript by the officer, with a statement of the reasons given by the witness for making them.
( 2 ) The transcript must then be signed by the witness, unless the interested parties by stipulation waive the signing, or the witness is unavailable or refuses to sign.
( 3 ) If the transcript is not signed by the witness, the officer must sign it and state on the record the fact of the waiver, the unavailability of the witness, or the refusal to sign together with the reason given, if any. The transcript may then be used as if it were signed, unless the judge determines that the reason given for refusal to sign requires rejection of the transcript in whole or in part.
( d ) The officer must certify on the transcript that the witness was duly sworn by the officer and that the transcript is a true record of the witness's testimony. The officer must then hand deliver or mail the original and two copies of the transcript to the judge.
#### § 7.11 Appeals relating to permits.

Any affected person may appeal permit issuance, denial of permit issuance, suspension, revocation, and terms and conditions of a permit through existing administrative appeal procedures, or through procedures which may be established by the Federal land manager pursuant to section 10(b) of the Act and this part.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 21, 2016 521914 

________________________________

In the Matter of PAUL OSBORNE,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

DONALD VENETTOZZI, as Acting

Director of Special Housing 

and Inmate Disciplinary 

Programs,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 6, 2016

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Devine and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Paul Osborne, Malone, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E.

Storrs of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules.

While he was making his rounds, a correction officer heard

petitioner in his cell yelling, using profane language and making

threatening comments about law enforcement officials. When the

officer told petitioner to stop yelling, he responded with more

profane language and threatening statements. As a result of this

incident, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with

harassment, interference, making threats, engaging in violent

conduct, creating a disturbance and refusing a direct order. 
-2- 521914 

Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty of

harassment, making threats and engaging in violent conduct, but

not guilty of the other charges. The determination was later

affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78

proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The detailed misbehavior report, together with

the testimony of its author, provide substantial evidence

supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Perkins v

Annucci, 129 AD3d 1421, 1421 [2015]; Matter of Deleon v Prack,

111 AD3d 1204, 1205 [2013]). The contrary testimony of

petitioner and his inmate witnesses presented a credibility issue

for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Simmons v

LaValley, 130 AD3d 1126,1127 [2015]; Matter of Espinal v Fischer,

114 AD3d 978, 979 [2014]). In addition, petitioner was not

improperly denied the right to have two witnesses, whose

testimony would have been redundant, testify at the hearing (see

Matter of White v Fischer, 121 AD3d 1478, 1479 [2014]; Matter of

Elias v Fischer, 118 AD3d 1193, 1194 [2014]). Furthermore, upon

reviewing the record, we find no indication that the Hearing

Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any

alleged bias (see Matter of Ramos v Prack, 125 AD3d 1036, 1037

[2015], lv dismissed 25 NY3d 1039 [2015]; Matter of Harris v

Deputy Superintendent of Security Piccolo, 122 AD3d 1044, 1045

[2014]). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions

and find them to be unavailing.

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr., Devine and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.
-3- 521914 

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without

costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from 
     KOWTOW, INC. September 30, 1997  financial  statements and  is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894501
<NAME>                        KOWTOW, INC.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997

<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997

<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 418.25 Water use for other than Newlands Project purposes.

The District will release sufficient water to meet the vested water rights below Sagouspe Dam as specified in the *Alpine* decree. These water rights are usually met by return flows. Releases for these water rights will in no case exceed the portion of 1,300 acre-feet per year not supplied by return flows. This water must be accounted for at the USGS gauge number 10312275 (the Carson River at Tarzyn Road near Fallon). Releases for this purpose will not be considered in determining Project diversions since the lands to which the water is being delivered are not part of the Project. (See § 418.15(b)(2)(ii).) Any flow past this gage in excess of the amount specified in this part will be absorbed by the District as an efficiency loss.
(No. 1094

Claimant awarded $4,100.00.)

#### William L. Fischer, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 29, 1927.*

Workmen’s compensation *act*— award *may he made to State employee under.*Where an employee of the State sustains an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, compensation may be awarded to him under the provisions of- the Workmen’s Compensation act.

Oscar J. Putting, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

It appears, from claimant’s declaration-that on. or about the 19th day of October, A. D. 1925, he was working for the State of Illinois as a plumber and steam-fitter’s helper on a section of the service tunnel at the Elgin State Hospital; that at the time in question he was ordered by the foreman, an employee of the State of Illinois, to inspect a six inch high pressure steam pipe line which had been made in a tunnel. The tunnel walls were complete and while claimant, together with others, was in the tunnel endeavoring to straighten the pipes, the walls caved in and the claimant was crushed by the falling of cement blocks and pipes. He was painfully and seriously injured, his pelvis having been broken and- fractured in six places. The claimant was a man of about 33 years of age and in good health at the time of the accident, and it is further alleged that the claimant is suffering with-a permanent deformity of the pelvis with permanent injury to his nervous system and is permanently disabled from following his occupation as a plumber and steam-fitter’s helper and will continue so to be.

A stipulation was filed substantially agreeing with the facts alleged and further showing that claimant has a wife and a child 5 years of age who are depending upon him as their sole means of support and at the time of the accident he was receiving $6.00 per day. It is further stipulated that the said William L. Fischer is permanently injured and physically incapacitated to do any physical labor of any kind for the rest of his life.

*317It therefore appears to the court that following the rules of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which should be followed in view of the facts stipulated and shown, the claimant should have allowance measured by the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Therefore it is considered by the court and recommended that the claimant be allowed the sum of $4,100.00.
### §6223. Partners bound by actions of partnership

#### (a) Designation of partnership representative

Each partnership shall designate (in the manner prescribed by the Secretary) a partner (or other person) with a substantial presence in the United States as the partnership representative who shall have the sole authority to act on behalf of the partnership under this subchapter. In any case in which such a designation is not in effect, the Secretary may select any person as the partnership representative.

#### (b) Binding effect

A partnership and all partners of such partnership shall be bound—

(1) by actions taken under this subchapter by the partnership, and

(2) by any final decision in a proceeding brought under this subchapter with respect to the partnership.

(Added Pub. L. 114–74, title XI, §1101(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 627.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior sections 6223 and 6224 were repealed by Pub. L. 114–74, title XI, §1101(a), (g), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 625, 638, applicable to returns filed for partnership taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017.

Section 6223, added Pub. L. 97–248, title IV, §402(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 649, related to notice to partners of proceedings.

Section 6224, added Pub. L. 97–248, title IV, §402(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 651; amended Pub. L. 107–147, title IV, §416(d)(1)(A), Mar. 9, 2002, 116 Stat. 55, related to partner participation in administrative proceedings, waiver of partner's rights, and settlement agreements.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to returns filed for partnership taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, with certain exceptions, see section 1101(g) of Pub. L. 114–74, set out as a note under section 6221 of this title.
### §5415. Records and returns

#### (a) Records

Every brewer shall keep records, in such form and containing such information as the Secretary shall prescribe by regulations as necessary for protection of the revenue. These records shall be preserved by the person required to keep such records for such period as the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe, and shall be available during business hours for examination and taking of abstracts therefrom by any internal revenue officer.

#### (b) Returns

Every brewer shall make true and accurate returns of his operations and transactions in the form, at the times, and for such periods as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1390; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5415, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 675, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1976—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.
### §5236. Discontinuance of storage facilities and transfer of distilled spirits

When the Secretary finds any facilities for the storage of distilled spirits on bonded premises to be unsafe or unfit for use, or the spirits contained therein subject to great loss or wastage he may require the discontinuance of the use of such facilities and require the spirits contained therein to be transferred to such other storage facilities as he may designate. Such transfer shall be made at such time and under such supervision as the Secretary may require and the expense of the transfer shall be paid by the owner or the warehouseman of the distilled spirits. Whenever the owner of such distilled spirits or the warehouseman fails to make such transfer within the time prescribed, or to pay the just and proper expense of such transfer, as ascertained and determined by the Secretary, such distilled spirits may be seized and sold by the Secretary in the same manner as goods are sold on distraint for taxes, and the proceeds of such sale shall be applied to the payment of the taxes due thereon and the cost and expenses of such sale and removal, and the balance paid over to the owner of such distilled spirits.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1369; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5252, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 649, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.
§ 49.30 How will the bureaus conduct inventory, monitoring, and preservation activities? ( a ) The bureaus will develop plans and procedures for the inventory and monitoring of paleontological resources on and from Federal land in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
( b ) The bureaus will preserve, manage, and protect paleontological resources on and from Federal land using scientific principles and expertise.
( c ) Activities under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will be coordinated with other agencies, non-Federal partners, the scientific community, and the general public where appropriate and practicable.
(No. 929

Claimant awarded $303.43.)

#### William C. Bodman, Conservator of the Estate of Lyman L. Bodman, an Insane Person, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 19, 1927.*

*Reimbursement*— award *may he made.*There being no dispute as to the facts in this case the court enters an award in favor of claimant.

Pomeroy & Martin, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Frank E. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim is for $303.43 paid to the Kankakee State Hospital for the support of Lyman L. Bodman while he was an inmate of said institution.

The Attorney General has filed a statement, to which is attached a letter from the director of the Department of Public Welfare in which the director admits the claim is just and recommends that it be allowed, and the Attorney General consents to an award in favor of claimant for that amount.

Claimant is therefore awarded the sum of $303.43.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4783 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4783

 To require the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
to carry out a pilot program on providing training to, validating, and 
       deploying grief companions to facilitate bereavement care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 4, 2022

   Mr. Young introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
to carry out a pilot program on providing training to, validating, and 
       deploying grief companions to facilitate bereavement care.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Doug Zembiec Gold Star Family 
Support Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM ON GRIEF COMPANIONS FOLLOWING CASUALTY 
              NOTIFICATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Commencing not later than 90 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness shall carry out a pilot program on providing 
training to, validating, and deploying grief companions to facilitate 
bereavement care provided by the Department of Defense following 
casualty notifications with respect to members of the Armed Forces.
    (b) Duration.--The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness shall carry out the pilot program required under subsection 
(a) for a period of not less than one year.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness $250,000 to carry out the pilot program required under 
subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```