alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7154

GARY M. WADE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. HAINES, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-102-5) Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 22, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary M. Wade, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gary M. Wade seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Wade has not made the requisite showing. See Wade v. Haines , No. CA-01-102-5 (N.D.W. Va. July 1, 2002). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1616 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1616

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To authorize the exchange of certain lands within the Martin Luther 
  King, Junior, National Historic Site for lands owned by the City of 
               Atlanta, Georgia, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1616

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize the exchange of certain lands within the Martin Luther 
  King, Junior, National Historic Site for lands owned by the City of 
               Atlanta, Georgia, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Martin Luther King, Junior, National 
Historic Site Land Exchange Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Public Law 96-438 established the Martin Luther King, 
        Junior, National Historic Site, and allows acquisition, by 
        donation only, of lands owned by the State.
            (2) The National Park Service owns a vacant lot that has no 
        historic significance. The City of Atlanta has expressed 
        interest in acquiring this property to encourage commercial 
        development along Edgewood Avenue.
            (3) The National Historic Site Visitor Center and Museum is 
        land-locked and has no emergency ingress or egress, making it 
        virtually impossible for firefighting equipment to reach.
            (4) The acquisition of city-owned property would enable the 
        National Park Service to establish easy street access to the 
        National Historic Site Visitor Center and Museum, and would 
        benefit the City by exchanging a piece of property that the 
        City could develop.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize the exchange 
of certain lands within the Martin Luther King, Junior, National 
Historic Site for lands owned by the City of Atlanta, Georgia.

SEC. 3. LAND EXCHANGE.

    Section 2(b)(1) of the Act of October 10, 1980 (Public Law 96-428; 
94 Stat. 1839; 16 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by striking the period 
and inserting ``or exchange.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 28, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.31
                                                                   -------------

Nikhil Sinha and Steven F. Coleman have entered into Change in Control
Agreements, and amendments thereto, substantially identical (apart from the
names of the parties thereto, the dates of execution and addresses for notices)
to the agreements with Mr. Bristow filed as Exhibits 101.29 and 10.30 to this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. John A. Blanchard III has also entered into an
identical agreement, except that the terms of the October 19, 2000 amendment to
Mr. Bristow's agreement are incorporated directly into the original form of Mr.
Blanchard's agreement.
§ 2634.1004 General rule. ( a ) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics may issue a Certificate of Divestiture for specific property in accordance with the procedures of § 2634.1005 if: ( 1 ) The Director determines that divestiture of the property by an eligible person is reasonably necessary to comply with 18 U.S.C. 208, or any other Federal conflict of interest statute, regulation, rule, or Executive order; or
( 2 ) A congressional committee requires divestiture as a condition of confirmation.
( b ) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics cannot issue a Certificate of Divestiture for property that already has been sold.
Example 1: An employee is directed to divest shares of stock, a limited partnership interest, and foreign currencies. If the sale of these assets will result in capital gains under the Internal Revenue Code, the employee may request and receive a Certificate of Divestiture.
Example 2: An employee of the Department of Commerce is directed to divest his shares of XYZ stock acquired through the exercise of options held in an employee benefit plan. The employee explains that the gain from the sale of the stock will be treated as ordinary income. Because only capital gains realized under Federal tax law are eligible for deferral under section 1043, a Certificate of Divestiture cannot be issued for the sale of the XYZ stock.
Example 3: During her Senate confirmation hearing, a nominee to a Department of Defense (DOD) position is directed to divest stock in a DOD contractor as a condition of her confirmation. Eager to comply with the order to divest, the nominee sells her stock immediately after the hearing and prior to being confirmed by the Senate. Once she is a DOD employee, she requests a Certificate of Divestiture for the stock. Because the Office of Government Ethics cannot issue a Certificate of Divestiture for property that has already been divested, the employee's request for a Certificate of Divestiture must be denied.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00427-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 30th District Court

Wichita County, Texas

Trial Court No. 183,834-A

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

TYRONE HALL, Appellant

V.

RICHARD WATHEN, LARES D. ANDEAS, CHARLES R. HONSLEY, WRAN 

HOWARD, ROBERT D. STIVERS, ALEJANDAL R. LAUREL, CECILIO 

GUERRA, SHERILYN TRENT, AND RICHARD D. FRANCO, Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On January 14, 2020, we notified appellant by letter that his brief filed January 

3, 2020 did not comply with Rule 38.1(a)–(d), (g)–(k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure or Local Rule 1.A and that a compliant, amended brief was due by Friday,

January 24, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 9, 38, and 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R.

1. We warned that his failure to file an amended brief that complied with the rules by 

January 24, 2020 could result in our striking the brief filed and dismissing the appeal

or the waiver of his noncomplying points. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3.

No amended brief was received.

On January 29, 2020, we again sent a written notice to appellant, reminding 

him that we had notified him on January 14 of his brief’s deficiencies and had set 

January 24 as the due date for a compliant, amended brief, and we stated that no

amended brief had been filed. We again gave appellant a deadline for filing a 

compliant, amended brief—Monday, February 10, 2020, and we stated that his failure 

to file an amended brief that complies with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Civil 

Procedure and our Local Rule 1.A. by that deadline could result in our striking the 

brief he filed and dismissing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3. We 

have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a compliant, amended brief even after we 

afforded ample opportunities to do so, we strike his brief filed January 3, 2020, and 
3

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 5, 2020
#### Flossie E. Hawkins, Respondent, *v.*Erskine R. Hawkins, Appellant.

First Department,

November 27, 1951.

*Vertner W. Tandy, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Sydney Rosenthal,*attorney *(Real Kaufman,*with him on the brief), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The defendant-appellant has been adjudged guilty of contempt for nonpayment of temporary alimony and fined the sum of $3,350 directed to be paid in two installments over a period of ten days. He asserts his inability to comply with the order, and says that his conduct was not contemptuous as the arrears accrued because of his straitened finances. Though defendant may not have sufficient excuse for not paying at least a portion of the current alimony, during part of the time when the defaults occurred he was in jail for nonpayment of prior installments of alimony. We think that before further imprisonment was ordered, the question of defendant’s present finances should have been the subject of further inquiry in order to aid the court in determining whether any relief should have been afforded defendant under section 1172-a of the Civil Practice Act.

*122The greatest aid to the dispatch of matrimonial problems of this nature would be an early trial where the question of the financial ability of the husband can be inquired into by a justice taking testimony instead of one deciding the matter upon affidavits. Accordingly, we direct that this action be placed upon the calendar by defendant forthwith and receive a prompt trial. The pending motion to punish for contempt is remitted to the justice presiding at such trial. Plaintiff and her counsel will be sufficiently protected as to any provisional remedy to enforce the orders for temporary alimony and counsel fees by the trial justice, who may decide the motion to punish for contempt before the entry of judgment or otherwise preserve the rights of the wife with respect to such alimony and counsel fees by a proper provision in the decree which he grants. *(Mittman*v. *Mittman,*263 App. Div. 384.)

The order appealed from should be reversed and the motion to punish for contempt remitted to the justice who shall preside upon the trial of this action. Defendant meanwhile will be required to continue to pay the $100 a week provided for in the stay directed by this court. Settle order.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Does, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed and the motion to punish for contempt remitted to the justice who shall preside upon the trial of the action. Defendant meanwhile is required to continue to pay the $100 a week provided for in the stay directed by this court. Settle order on notice. [See *post,*p. 790.] -
### §861. Mandatory safety standards for underground mines

#### (a) Coverage; enforcement; review

The provisions of sections 862 through 878 of this title shall be interim mandatory safety standards applicable to all underground coal mines until superseded in whole or in part by improved mandatory safety standards promulgated by the Secretary under the provisions of section 811 of this title, and shall be enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as any mandatory safety standard promulgated under section 811 of this title. Any orders issued in the enforcement of the interim standards set forth in this subchapter shall be subject to review as provided in subchapter I of this chapter.

#### (b) Purpose; initiation of studies and research

The purpose of this subchapter is to provide for the immediate application of mandatory safety standards developed on the basis of experience and advances in technology and to prevent newly created hazards resulting from new technology in coal mining. The Secretary of the Interior in coordination with the Secretary shall immediately initiate studies, investigations, and research to further upgrade such standards and to develop and promulgate new and improved standards promptly that will provide increased protection to the miners, particularly in connection with hazards from trolley wires, trolley feeder wires, and signal wires, the splicing and use of trailing cables, and in connection with improvements in vulcanizing of electric conductors, improvement in roof control measures, methane drainage in advance of mining, improved methods of measuring methane and other explosive gases and oxygen concentrations, and the use of improved underground equipment and other sources of power for such equipment.

(Pub. L. 91–173, title III, §301, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 765; Pub. L. 95–164, title II, §203, Nov. 9, 1977, 91 Stat. 1317.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1977—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–164, §203(a), substituted "The Secretary of the Interior in coordination with the Secretary shall immediately initiate studies" for "The Secretary shall immediately initiate studies".

Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 95–164, §203(b), struck out subsec. (c) which related to the modification of standards, and subsec. (d) which related to the applicability of section 553 of title 5 in cases where the provisions of sections 862 to 878 of this title had provided that certain actions, conditions, or requirements be carried out as prescribed by the Secretary or the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

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

#### Effective Date of 1977 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–164 effective 120 days after Nov. 9, 1977, except as otherwise provided, see section 307 of Pub. L. 95–164, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section operative 90 days after Dec. 30, 1969, except to the extent an earlier date is specifically provided for in Pub. L. 91–173, see section 509 of Pub. L. 91–173, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.
### §721. Access to certain information

(a) No provision of the Social Security Act, including section 453(l) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 653(l)), shall be construed to limit, amend, or supersede the authority of the Comptroller General to obtain any information or to inspect any record under section 716 of this title.

(b) The specific reference to a statute in subsection (a) shall not be construed to affect access by the Government Accountability Office to information under statutes that are not so referenced.

(Added Pub. L. 115–3, §2(a), Jan. 31, 2017, 131 Stat. 7.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620, which is classified generally to chapter 7 (§301 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of Title 42 and Tables.
#### § 191.155 Merchandise withdrawn from warehouse for exportation.

The regulations in part 18 of this chapter concerning the supervision of lading and certification of exportation of merchandise withdrawn from warehouse for exportation without payment of duty shall be followed to the extent applicable.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 American Bio Medica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Stan
Cipkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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
Company.




/s/ Stan CipkowskiStan
      CipkowskiChief
      Executive OfficerPrincipal
      Executive OfficerMay
      14, 2009
TN: DT-02-11

To: NRC Management Directives Custodians

Subject: Elimination of Management Directive 8.6, “Systematic

Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Process”

Purpose: Directive and Handbook 8.6 are being eliminated in

conjunction with issuance of a complete revision of MD 8.13,

"Reactor Oversight Process," which describes the NRC's

new oversight process for operating power reactors.

The Commission approved the termination of the Systematic

Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Program in

the SRMs related to SECY-00-049, "Results of the Revised

Reactor Oversight Process Pilot Program.”

Note: Please remove material under Tab 8.6 and

discard. Do not remove Tab 8.6; it must remain in

place as a reserved number.

Office and 

Division of Origin: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Contact: Thomas Boyce, 415-1130

Date Approved: May 3, 2002

Volume: 8 Licensee Oversight Programs

Directive: 8.6 [RESERVED]

Availability: None

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

DIRECTIVE TRANSMITTAL

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1715 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1715

To amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the authority of the 
 Department of Veterans Affairs to recover from third parties costs of 
medical care furnished to veterans and other persons by the Department.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2003

  Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. Evans) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance the authority of the 
 Department of Veterans Affairs to recover from third parties costs of 
medical care furnished to veterans and other persons by the Department.

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

SECTION 1. RECOVERY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF COSTS OF 
              CERTAIN HEALTH CARE SERVICES.

    (a) Scope of Recovery Authority.--Subsection (i) of section 1729 of 
title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking clause (i) and 
        redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses (i), 
        (ii), and (iii), respectively; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (D) 
                as subparagraphs (B) through (E), respectively; and
                    (B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so 
                redesignated, the following new subparagraph (A):
                    ``(A) a department or agency of the United States 
                other than the Department;''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subsection (a)(1) of such section is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``if'';
            (2) by inserting ``, or (B) the person had incurred a legal 
        liability to pay for such care or services'' before the period; 
        and
            (3) by inserting at the end the following new sentence: 
        ``The preceding sentence applies notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law, other than a law enacted after the date of 
        the enactment of this sentence that is expressly stated as an 
        exception or limitation to this section.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply only with respect to care and services furnished under chapter 17 
of title 38, United States Code, on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Libman Contracting Company, Appellant, v. David M. Oltarsh Iron Works of New York and Another, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §1301. Experimental practices

In order to encourage advances in mining and reclamation practices or to allow post-mining land use for industrial, commercial, residential, or public use (including recreational facilities), the regulatory authority with approval by the Secretary may authorize departures in individual cases on an experimental basis from the environmental protection performance standards promulgated under sections 1265 and 1266 of this title. Such departures may be authorized if (i) the experimental practices are potentially more or at least as environmentally protective, during and after mining operations, as those required by promulgated standards; (ii) the mining operations approved for particular land-use or other purposes are not larger or more numerous than necessary to determine the effectiveness and economic feasibility of the experimental practices; and (iii) the experimental practices do not reduce the protection afforded public health and safety below that provided by promulgated standards.

(Pub. L. 95–87, title VII, §711, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 523.)
### §772. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8512(a)(15), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4759

Section, Aug. 19, 1950, ch. 761, §2, 64 Stat. 466; Pub. L. 85–351, §1, Mar. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 49; Pub. L. 89–670, §6(b)(1), Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 938; Pub. L. 90–163, §1, Nov. 29, 1967, 81 Stat. 518; Pub. L. 90–167, §1(b), Nov. 29, 1967, 81 Stat. 520; Pub. L. 98–557, §15(b)(2), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2866, related to death of employee due to non-service-connected causes after 15 years' service and amount of payment to surviving spouse.

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

#### Savings

For continuation of benefit payments notwithstanding repeals made by section 8512 of Pub. L. 116–283, see section 8512(b)(1) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as a note under section 725 of this title.