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

**No. 11**  **- 2076** 

TYVETTE MCBRIDE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SOCIAL SECURITY , Defendant

- Appellee , and SSA (Social Security Administration) , Party

- in Interest

.

Appe al from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 00440

- MSD

- TEM )

Submitted : February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Tyvette McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lynn Watt, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tyvet te McBride appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) her complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner ’s denial of her claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The district court re ferred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) ( West 200 6 & Supp. 2011 ). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and advised McBride that failure to file tim ely 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 sub stance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). McBride has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 a dequately presented in the materials before the court and argument woul d not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 2 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00287

- CR NO. 14

- 12

- 0028 8

- CR

KELLYE HENSKE CARTWR IGHT , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 21st District Court Washington County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 13,934 & 14,493

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of felony driving while intoxicated and was placed on probation

. On March 6, 2012 , the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced appellant to five years ’ confinement in cause number 13,934, and ten years’ confinement in cause number 14,493

. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.2

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and demonstr ating why there are no arguable grounds to
be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se r esponse. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty

- five days ha ve passed and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wh olly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error
in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds
for review. See Ble dsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Busby. Do Not Publish

- T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)
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 Tax Credit Trust, a Delaware
      statutory business trust Series I (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period
      ended June 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of Richman
      American Credit Corp., manager of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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
                Registrant.




/s/
                David SalzmanDavid
                SalzmanChief
                Executive Officer of Richman AmericanCredit
                Corp., Manager of the RegistrantMarch
                  12, 2008
§ 831.1407 Burdens of proof. ( a ) *Burden of OPM.* The Associate Director for Compensation must establish by the preponderance of the evidence that an overpayment occurred.
( b ) *Burden of annuitant.* The recipient of an overpayment must establish by substantial evidence that he/she is eligible for waiver or an adjustment.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00302

- CV

In re Estate of Roosevelt Green, Sr., Deceased

On Appeal from the County Court of Matagorda County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR18

- 0026

JUDGMENT
The Court ’ s judgment issued on D ecember 2, 2021, is he reby withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor. THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observan ce. February 3, 2022
#### Charles H. Watson, Appellant, v. Saul C. La Vine et al., Respondents.

Whether there was an agreement made by plaintiff with defendants, and the terms thereof, were matters for the jury. Defendants denied that there was any agreement. Plaintiff swore that it was agreed that he would be paid a commission if *“*any transaction ” was had with his customer, even though the transaction was by the customer directly with defendants. There was no objection to the testimony of the plaintiff on the ground that it was at variance with his complaint. At the end of the whole case the motion to dismiss and for the direction of a verdict was not based upon the ground that plaintiff had failed to establish an agreement. The evidence warranted the jury in finding that there was an agreement, as asserted by plaintiff, that the third parties were brought into the transaction and induced to join in the lease by plaintiff’s customer, and that the latter was the most important factor in the transaction. The jury could also say that when the agreement was entered into by plaintiff with defendants, *792the latter indicated to him that the property would require a syndicate for its proper management and that it was not, therefore, the intention of the parties that a transaction had to be solely with the person brought by plaintiff. In any event, it cannot be said as matter of law that the parties intended that plaintiff’s customer alone should be the lessee. *(Rickerson*v. *Schiffino,*N. Y. L. J., July 3, 1931, p. 1780, col. 3 [App. Term, 2d Dept.]; *Minks*v. *Clark,*70 Col. 323.) The customer, Frank Saecente, was bound by the provisions of the lease and was a tenant thereunder. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

131384 & (19) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 131384 

v CoA: 268083

 Gr Traverse CC: 05-009893-FH 

TIMOTHY LEE GLAZIER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, a stipulation signed by the attorneys for the parties 

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered and, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 28, 2006 

 Clerk
### **CHAPTER 27—OCEAN DUMPING**

Sec.
1401.
Congressional finding, policy, and declaration of purpose.
1402.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—REGULATION

1411.
Prohibited acts.
1412.
Dumping permit program.
1412a.
Emergency dumping of industrial waste.
1413.
Dumping permit program for dredged material.
1414.
Permit conditions.
1414a.
Special provisions regarding certain dumping sites.
1414b.
Ocean dumping of sewage sludge and industrial waste.
1414c.
Prohibition on disposal of sewage sludge at landfills on Staten Island.
1415.
Penalties.
1416.
Relationship to other laws.
1417.
Enforcement.
1418.
Regulations.
1419.
International cooperation.
1420.
Authorization of appropriations.
1421.
Omitted.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—RESEARCH

1441.
Monitoring and research program.
1442.
Research program respecting possible long-range effects of pollution, overfishing, and man-induced changes of ocean ecosystems.
1443.
Research program respecting ocean dumping and other methods of waste disposal.
1444.
Annual reports.
1445.
Authorization of appropriations.
# L_2015311EN.01005001.xml

| 26.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 311/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 311/50

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 295/2014

of 12 December 2014

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement [2015/2162]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 743/2014 of 9 July 2014 replacing Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 as regards Minimum frequency of analyses (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 743/2014 of 9 July 2014 replacing Annex VII to Regulation (EU) No 601/2012 as regards Minimum frequency of analyses (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 21apg (Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012) of Annex XX to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32014 R 0743: Commission Regulation (EU) No 743/2014 of 9 July 2014 (OJ L 201, 10.7.2014, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32014 R 0743: Commission Regulation (EU) No 743/2014 of 9 July 2014 (OJ L 201, 10.7.2014, p. 1).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EU) No 743/2014 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 13 December 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 12 December 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 201, 10.7.2014, p. 1.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
M e m o r a n d u m

U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t FORM 0 - 1 1SI (1-12)

R a i l r o a d R e t i r e m e n t b o a r d

JUN171996 

1- 96- 2 ® 1

TO Ronald J. Dammon 

Director of Field Service

FROM : Catherine C. Cook

General Counsel (((

SUBJECT: Credibility of Relocation Expenses

This is in response to your memorandum of May 13, 1996, regarding the treatment under the 

Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) of advances 

and reimbursements and relocation allowances paid to employees to cover the expenses of a job 

related move.

Generally, the Board has looked to the treatment the Internal Revenue Service accords sim ilar

payments under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) in determining whether certain 

payments were compensation under the Acts administered by the Board. Prior to 1994, the 

Board generally treated employer reimbursements and advances for moving expenses as 

compensation since there was no specific exclusion for such payments from the definition of 

compensation under the RRTA.

However, recent legislation has changed the treatment of these payments. Section 3231(e)(5) 

of the RRTA excludes from the definition of compensation amounts which would be excludable 

from gross income under section 132 of the Internal Revenue Code. Effective January 1, 1994, 

section 132(a)(6) provides that gross income shall not include reimbursement for a qualified 

moving expense. Section 132(g) in turn provides that a qualified moving expense is one which 

if paid by the employee directly would be deductible under section 217 of the Code.

Section 217 of the Internal Revenue Code defines deductible moving expenses as follows:

In General.- For purposes of this section, the term "moving expenses" means 

only the reasonable expenses -

(A) of moving household goods and personal effects from 

the former residence to the new residence, and
Ronald J. Dammon 

Director of Field Service

(B) of traveling (including lodging) from the former 

residence to the new place of residence. Such term shall not 

include any expenses for meals.

Based upon the above, my opinion with respect to the payments in issue is as follows:

1. Transfer allowance. This could be excluded from compensation 

if it represented an advance on the cost of moving household goods 

or traveling to the new residence. If it is paid without any 

accountability with respect to these costs, then it would be 

considered compensation;

2. Lump-sum in lieu of carrier’s agreement to purchase home. This

payment is compensation under the Acts.

3. Lump-sum in lieu of all other benefits. This is compensation

under the Acts.

4. Lump-sum in lieu of movement of household goods. As an

advance for the cost of moving, this payment could be excluded 

from compensation. However, the employer has determined to 

treat it as compensation under the RRTA; accordingly, it would be 

considered as compensation under the Acts administered by the 

Board.

TWSadler:ik:cmw

MOVING11.TWS

A
NRC MERGES ADVISORY COMMITTEES 

ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS AND NUCLEAR WASTE 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided to merge its Advisory Committee on 

Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) into the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(ACRS) to reflect the changing workloads and technical challenges facing the agency. 

 The merger anticipates increasing need for expertise in health physics, waste 

management, and earth sciences in the agency’s licensing reviews for new reactors, the mixedoxide (MOX) nuclear fuel fabrication facility and facilities related to the Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership (GNEP). 

 “The Commission has benefited immensely from the expertise and advice of the 

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials,” NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein said. “We 

thank these eminent scholars and will continue to draw on their assistance as a subcommittee of 

the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.” 

 The Commission established the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste in 1988 to 

advise the Commission on high-level waste and low-level waste issues. Previously, this function 

was performed by the Waste Management Subcommittee of the ACRS. Last year, the ACNW 

was renamed the ACNW&M. 

 The ACNW&M’s role has concluded in recent years as the NRC’s low-level waste and 

decommissioning programs matured. Also, the committee’s activities in high-level waste have 

decreased as the Department of Energy and the NRC have resolved most key technical issues in 

DOE’s plans for a high-level waste repository; any remaining issues will be addressed in the 

license application, expected later this year. If and when DOE submits its license application, 

ACNW&M’s members would be designated as adjudicatory advisors to support the 

Commission, limiting their interaction with agency staff. 

 The Commission has directed Frank Gillespie, executive director of the advisory 

committees, to draft a transition plan to implement the merger, including disposition of topics 

currently before the ACNW&M and whether those topics should continue under the new 

subcommittee. Until the transition plan is implemented, the ACNW&M will continue to meet 

under the direction of Dr. Michael Ryan, the current committee chairman. The ACNW&M will 

next meet Feb. 12-14. 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 08-024 February 5, 2008
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-05-045 December 7, 2005

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OFFICIALS

IN ATLANTA TO DISCUSS HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials are scheduled to meet with Southern Nuclear

Operating Co. officials at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 15 to discuss several issues at the Hatch nuclear

plant in southern Ga. 

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in the NRC Region II Office, located on

the 24th floor of the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street. NRC officials will be

available after the business portion of the meeting to answer questions from interested observers.

The meeting’s discussions will include plant staffing and planned equipment upgrades. The

meeting will also cover a recent Unusual Event due to a transformer fire, and the current status of

nuclear material inventory issues at the plant.

 Interested members of the public who are unable to attend the meeting can participate via a

toll-free audio teleconference. Anyone interested in participating by phone should contact Gordon

Williams at 404-562-4516 or e-mail him at grw2@nrc.gov .

###
472 P.2d 383

#### Joanne McADAMS, Petitioner, v. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 9085.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

July 8, 1970.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and TACK-ETT, SISK and McKENNA, Justice, concurring. WATSON, Justice, not participating.

Ordered that petition be and the same is hereby denied.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park for the Condemnation of Certain Lands Situated in the County of Rockland, etc.

Motion to resettle order granted and order signed. Present — Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
Total Flight time recorded: 0.0 TypeReg No From To Date UAV Returned to Service Total Time on Airframe 

# DJI Inspire 1 Maintenance Record Date Aircraft Mechanic / Technician Discrepancy Maintenance Description
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64780-64781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24799]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Drug Resistance and HIV Infection.
    Date: November 23, 2004.
    Time: 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive 3145, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Geetha P. Bansal, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 3145, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 
7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-5658, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83e4e1e2edf0e2efc3edeae2eae7adedeaebade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="721510131c01131e321c1b131b165c1c1b1a5c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 64781]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: October 28, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-24799 Filed 11-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| 1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Liquidation Trust. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                February 13, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Conrad                F. Hocking |
|----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                   |   | Conrad                F. Hocking          |
|                                   |   | Liquidation                Trustee        |

----