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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6263

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RUSSELL WRIGHT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (1:05-cv-00700-NCT-PTS; 1:97-cr-00231-NCT-2; 1:97-

cr-00226-NCT-2)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 29, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Russell Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

denying his motion for certificate of appealability. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Wright that the failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Wright failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s 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. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Wright has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

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
No: 14-053 August 22, 2014

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

 

NRC Seeks Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Statement

For PSEG Early Site Permit, Public Meetings Oct. 1

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District,

are seeking public comment on a preliminary conclusion that environmental impacts would not prevent 

issuing an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the PSEG site in Salem County, N.J. The site is adjacent to the 

existing Salem and Hope Creek nuclear power plants, about 15 miles southeast of Wilmington, Del.

The NRC staff’s preliminary environmental recommendation is that a permit could be issued. 

The staff’s conclusion is based on its independent review of a report submitted by PSEG, taking into 

account consultations with federal, state, tribal and local agencies and consideration of comments 

received during the public scoping process in November 2010. The staff’s preliminary conclusions 

include a finding that there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites. The staff 

must also complete a separate review of safety issues before an agency decision on the permit.

The preliminary conclusion is contained in NUREG-2168, “Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit at the PSEG ESP Site.” The EIS will be available on 

Regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2014-0149. The public can comment on the draft EIS until 

Nov. 6, including at two public meetings Oct. 1, in Carneys Point, N.J. The NRC will issue a separate 

notice for the meetings in the near future. Comments can be submitted, using Docket ID NRC-2014-

0149, through Regulations.gov or by mailing them to Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail 

Stop: 3WFN-06-A44M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related issues, such as environmental

impacts, for possible future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site. PSEG 

Power and PSEG Nuclear submitted the ESP application on May 25, 2010. If approved, the permit 

would give PSEG up to 20 years to decide whether to request a license from the NRC to build and 

operate a reactor at the site. More information on the PSEG application is available on the NRC 

website, and a “Reader’s Guide” to the draft EIS is available on the NRC’s electronic document 

database, ADAMS, under accession number ML14217A479.

The ESP application includes activities that require Army Corps of Engineers authorization 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899. Those 

activities are described in the draft EIS. PSEG is completing a permit application to the Corps to

authorize those activities, and the Corps will publish a separate public notice detailing the work 

proposed for Corps review and authorization.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In connection with this Annual Report of Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Limited (the “Company”) on the Form 10-K/A for the year ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cai Yongjun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
Such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ending June 30, 2010 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Limited.





Date: January 14, 2011




By: /s/ Cai Yongjun


___________________________




Cai Yongjun


Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
----

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        OF**

**CHIEF        EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT        TO**

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

| (1) | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended                  September 30, 2007 as filed on the date hereof with the Securities                  and                  Exchange Commission (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                  Company. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                  Chang H. Ahn        |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Chang                  H. Ahn            |   |
| Chief                  Executive Officer |   |

----
### §1320a–8b. Attempts to interfere with administration of this chapter

Whoever corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) attempts to intimidate or impede any officer, employee, or contractor of the Social Security Administration (including any State employee of a disability determination service or any other individual designated by the Commissioner of Social Security) acting in an official capacity to carry out a duty under this chapter, or in any other way corruptly or by force or threats of force (including any threatening letter or communication) obstructs or impedes, or attempts to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this chapter, shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, except that if the offense is committed only by threats of force, the person shall be fined not more than $3,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. In this subsection, the term "threats of force" means threats of harm to the officer or employee of the United States or to a contractor of the Social Security Administration, or to a member of the family of such an officer or employee or contractor.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1129B, as added Pub. L. 108–203, title II, §206, Mar. 2, 2004, 118 Stat. 512.)
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11536-11537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29305; Amdt. No. 91-336A]
RIN 2120-AI92

Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service; 
Technical Amendment; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction of a technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule technical amendment 
published on February 9, 2015 (80 FR 6899). In that final rule, which 
became effective on the date of publication, the FAA corrected errors 
in regulatory provisions addressing Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast Out equipment and use. The FAA inadvertently listed an 
incorrect Amendment Number for that final rule. This document corrects 
that error.

DATES: Effective: March 4, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Robert F. Nichols, Jr., Surveillance Services 
Group Manager, AJM-23, Air Traffic Organization,

[[Page 11537]]

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-0629; email 
Robert.nichols@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Lorelei Peter, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; email Lorelei.Peter@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 9, 2015, the FAA published a final rule technical 
amendment entitled, ``Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B) Out Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) 
Service; Technical Amendment.'' In that final rule, which became 
effective February 9, 2015, the FAA amended 14 CFR part 91. The FAA 
inadvertently listed the incorrect Amendment Number for part 91 in the 
header information of the final rule as 91-334. The correct amendment 
number is 91-336.

Correction

    In the final rule, FR Doc. 2015-02579, published on February 9, 
2015, at 80 FR 6899 make the following correction:
    1. On page 6899 in the heading of the final rule, revise ``Amdt. 
No. 91-334'' to read ``91-336''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority provided by 49 
U.S.C. 106(f), on February 26, 2015.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-04476 Filed 3-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
### §13296. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for purposes of this part $40,000,000 for the 5-year period beginning with the first full fiscal year after October 24, 1992, to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title VI, §626, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2905.)
#### Myrtle A. Essex, Respondent, v. Webster B. Essex et al., Appellants.

In an action to set aside a deed made by the defendant S X Laboratories, Inc., to defendant Ruby Kaura, alleged to have been made in fraud of respondent, *716wife of the defendant Webster Burton Essex, defendants appeal from the judgment in favor of respondent. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. On the evidence the trial court could find that respondent was a creditor of appellant Essex by reason of the separation agreement between respondent and him; that the latter was in fact the owner of the premises; that the deed by his personal corporation to the appellant Ruby Kaura was fraudulent as to the respondent, and that there was intentional fraud. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ. [See *post,*p. 878.]
#### Robert Kittle, plaintiff in error, v. William R. Wilson and Alfred P. Hopkins, defendants in error.

1. Promissory Note: extension of time of payment. An agreement by tbe indorsee of a promissory note for a definite extension of tbe time of payment, in consideration of an agreement by tbe maker to pay a greater rate of interest than that provided for in the note, is binding upon them, and if made without the consent of the indorser will release him from all liability thereon.

2. -: HOW EXTENSION OF PAYMENT TO BE AVAILED OF. This defense is a legal one, and should be made by the indorser in the action against him on the note; but if he neglect to do so and suffer judgment to go against him, he cannot afterwards make it available as a ground for enjoining the enforcement of such judgment.

Appeal from the district court for Dodge county. Tried below before Post, J. •

*Robert Kittle, pro se,*upon the points passed upon by the court,

cited *Ba/nk of Steubeiwille v. RLoge,*6 Ohio, 17. Chitty on Contracts, 6 Ed., 533.

Lake, J".

This case comes here by appeal from the district court for Dodge county. The object of the action is to perpetually enjoin the collection of a certain judgment rendered by the .county court of that county against this plaintiff as indorser of a promissory note, executed by one William Martin to the said plaintiff, and by him indorsed and transferred to the defendants. It appears that this note was originally secured by a mortgage executed by Martin upon certain real estate which had been foreclosed, and this judgment was for the balance remaining unsatisfied after the sale of the mortgaged premises.

*77The sole ground upon which this injunction is asked as stated in the petition is, that the defendants, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, entered into an agreement with the maker of the note to extend the time of payment thereof from the 4th of October, 1874, to the 24th day of February, 1877, in consideration of an agreement by the maker to pay interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum — the note by its terms drawing only ten per cent. And it is alleged that this extension was actually given.

There can be no doubt that if the facts respecting this extension were precisely as alleged in the petition, they would, if established, have been a good defense to the action against the plaintiff in the county court. An agreement between the indorsee and maker of a promissory note, for any definite extension of the ° time of payment, in consideration of an agreement by the latter to pay an increased rate of interest, is binding upon them, and if made without the consent of the indorser, will release him from all liability on the note.

But this defense was a legal one, and should have been made to the action on the note. By suffering judgment to go against him in that suit, the plaintiff has lost the advantage which the extension gave to him, and cannot now make it available as a ground for resisting the enforcement of the judgment. There is no equity in the petition, and the judgment of the court below dismissing the action must be sustained.

Judgment accordingly.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CentennialSpecialty Foods Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the periodended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas L. Evans, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(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 ofthe Company.

 

 
|                               | /s/ DOUGLAS L. EVANS    |   |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                               | Douglas L. Evans        |
|                               | Chief Financial Officer |
|                               |                    |
| Dated:  August 22,  2005 |

 

----
#### Solomon Weiss, Appellant, v. Chevera Sward Bussach Ahrih of Flatbush, Respondent.

Defendant owed plaintiff no duty, on the day he fell, to maintain a light in the place where he entered without invitation of or direction by defendant. Present— Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
August 25, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Brooke P. Clark, Director 

 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-15-0088 – SELECTION OF 

PRESIDING OFFICER FOR MANDATORY HEARINGS 

ASSOCIATED WITH EARLY SITE PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND 

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR MEDICAL 

ISOTOPE PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 

The Commission has approved the recommendation to delegate to the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board Panel mandatory hearings associated with early site permit applications. 

The Commission has agreed to conduct mandatory hearings associated with construction 

permit applications for medical isotope production and utilization facilities. These hearings 

will likely involve novel issues and unique technology matters that are best addressed by the 

Commission. 

The Panel should follow the direction contained in CLl-05-17, as that direction seems to 

have served the NRC well in the past. 

In preparation for the proceedings associated with construction permit applications for medical 

isotope production and utilization facilities, the staff should follow Chapter IV of the Internal 

Commission Procedures, “Conduct of Mandatory Hearings on Applications for Combined 

Licenses,” to the extent practical. After the first medical isotope facility mandatory hearing, 

which will be conducted using those procedures, OCAA should examine the Commission's 

current mandatory hearing procedures. 

The staff requirements memorandum for this paper should be made public to provide timely 

notice of the Commission's decision to the applicants and staff involved in ESP application and 

medical isotope production and utilization facility reviews. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 EDO 

 OGC 

 ASLBP 

 PDR
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3603 

To authorize 150,000 incremental vouchers for tenant-based rental assistance 

under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to help 

meet the housing needs of low-income families. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize 150,000 incremental vouchers for tenant-based 

rental assistance under section 8 of the United States 

Housing Act of 1937 to help meet the housing needs 

of low-income families. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing Opportunities 

5 Made Easier Act’’ or the ‘‘HOME Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3603 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN INCREMENTAL SECTION 8 RENTAL AS2 SISTANCE VOUCHERS. 

3 (a) PROVISION OF INCREMENTAL VOUCHERS.—Sub4 ject only to the appropriation of sufficient amounts pursu5 ant to subsection (b), in fiscal year 2012 the Secretary 

6 of Housing and Urban Development shall provide to public 

7 housing agencies tenant-based rental housing assistance 

8 under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 

9 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) for 150,000 incremental 

10 vouchers, and shall renew such vouchers in each fiscal year 

11 thereafter. 

12 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

13 are authorized to be appropriated— 

14 (1) for fiscal year 2012, such sums as may be 

15 necessary to provide the incremental vouchers de16 scribed in subsection (a); and 

17 (2) in each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as 

18 may be necessary to renew the vouchers described in 

19 subsection (a) for that year. 

20 Any amounts appropriated pursuant to this subsection 

21 shall remain available until expended. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Joseph J. Engel, Respondent. Rogers Imports, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the petitioner-respondent. No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed shall be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Botein, JJ.