alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6805

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HAROLD SMITH, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-85-166, CA-99-800-13) Submitted: November 4, 1999 Decided: November 29, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Harold Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Corley Lucius, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Harold Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Smith , Nos. CR-85-166; CA-99-800-13 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 1999). We deny Smith leave to proceed in forma pauperis and also deny Smith’s motion for transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Akin *v.*Comer Mercantile Company.

September 26, 1912.

Money rule. Before Judge Meadow. * Madison superior court. March 20, 1911.

*J. F. L. Bond,*for plaintiff. *B. T. Moseley,*for defendant.

Atkinson, J.

Under tlie provisions of Civil Code §§ 3349, 3350, a mortgage given to secure the purchase-price of supplies furnished to aid in making a crop of a given year is superior to the lien thereon of an older common-law judgment, though the mortgage was executed after such supplies were furnished, and subsequently to the levy of the execution issued upon such common-law judgment. *Franklin*v. *Callaway,*120 *Ga.*382 (47 S. E. 970).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4345



# 
C HRISTOPHERM ICHAEL W ATKINS ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-00-43) Submitted: November 14, 2001 Decided: December 4, 2001 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELJohn G. Lafratta, COWAN, NORTH & LAFRATTA, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth E. Melson, United States Attorney, Matthew W. Hoffman, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: A jury convicted Christopher Michael Watkins of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, he alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Finding no error, we affirm.On direct appeal of a criminal conviction, a "verdict must be sustained if there is substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it." Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In the present case, we find that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to determine that Watkins possessed a firearm and threw it while being pursued by the police. We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal only when the ineffectiveness "conclusively appears" on the record. United States v. Smith , 62 F.3d 641, 651 (4th Cir. 1995). Otherwise, such claims should be raised in the district court in a postconviction proceeding rather than in this court by direct appeal. Id. In the present case, there is nothing in the record that clearly shows that counsel was deficient for failing to move for a downward departure, given Watkins’ extensive criminal history. In addition, because the record does not show that a juror was sleeping during Watkins’ trial, counsel was not clearly deficient for not raising an objection.Accordingly, we affirm Watkins’ conviction and sentence. 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. AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. W ATKINS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE SRI RECEIVABLES PURCHASE CO., INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                              0 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               76,924 
<PP&E>                                              0 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 82,385 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,861 
<BONDS>                                        30,000 
<COMMON>                                            0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                     44,013 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   82,385 
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,123 
<CGS>                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,015 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,805 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,303 
<INCOME-TAX>                                      852 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             1,451 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,451
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0 
                                              

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60733

LAURA L CARLOCK, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Jane M. Love, Deceased; HOMER H LOVE; LINDA PHIPPS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

WILMER D. WILSON; ET AL, Defendants,

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Garnishee-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

(5:93-CV-128-BrN)

August 8, 1997

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.
### §5420. Failure to report violations; penalties

Any person, other than an officer or employee of the United States, or a person exercising inspection functions under a State plan pursuant to section 5422 of this title, who knowingly and willfully fails to report a violation of any construction or safety standard established under section 5403 of this title may be fined up to $1,000 or imprisoned for up to one year, or both.

(Pub. L. 93–383, title VI, §621, Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 712.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of 180 days following Aug. 22, 1974, see section 627 of Pub. L. 93–383, set out as a note under section 5401 of this title.
### §7941. Study of authority for regulation and control of residual radioactive materials at New Mexico sites for protection of public health, safety, and the environment; report to Congress and Secretary; basis for determination of inadequacy of authority; interim regulation pending completion of study

The Commission, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Attorney General of the State of New Mexico, shall conduct a study to determine the extent and adequacy of the authority of the Commission and the State of New Mexico to require, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended by title II of this Act) [42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.] or under State authority as permitted under section 274 of such Act [42 U.S.C. 2021] or under other provision of law, the owners of the following active uranium mill sites to undertake appropriate action to regulate and control all residual radioactive materials at such sites to protect public health, safety, and the environment: the former Homestake-New Mexico Partners site near Milan, New Mexico, and the Anaconda carbonate process tailings site near Bluewater, New Mexico. Such study shall be completed and a report thereof submitted to the Congress and to the Secretary within one year after November 8, 1978, together with such recommendations as may be appropriate. If the Commission determines that such authority is not adequate to regulate and control such materials at such sites in the manner provided in the first sentence of this section, the Commission shall include in the report a statement of the basis for such determination. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent or delay action by a State as permitted under section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [42 U.S.C. 2021] or under any other provision of law or by the Commission to regulate such residual radioactive materials at such sites prior to completion of such study.

(Pub. L. 95–604, title III, §301, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3042.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–604, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3021, known as the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note under section 7901 of this title and Tables.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, referred to in text, is act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919, which is classified principally to chapter 23 (§2011 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

Title II of this Act, referred to in text, is title II (§§201–209) of Pub. L. 95–604, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3033, which enacted sections 2022, 2113, 2114 of this title, amended sections 2014, 2021, 2111, and 2201 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 2014, 2021, and 2113 of this title. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see Tables.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

June 30, 2015

s0622 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2015

150418

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150418

COA: 323338

Wayne CC: 08

- 011116

- FC

CARLOS LEBRON BARTELL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE SRI RECEIVABLES PURCHASE CO., INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                83,584
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,402
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,861
<BONDS>                                         30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,402
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,784
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 935
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,525
<INCOME-TAX>                                       567
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                958
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       958
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER VI—DISPOSAL OF MATERIALS ON PUBLIC LANDS
##### 



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 Metris Companies Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
D. Wesselink, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. /s/ David D. WesselinkName:
    
    David D. WesselinkTitle:
    
    Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 9, 2004
### §8262b. Intergovernmental energy management planning and coordination

#### (a) Conference workshops

The Administrator of General Services, in consultation with the Secretary and the Task Force, shall hold regular, biennial conference workshops in each of the 10 standard Federal regions on energy management, conservation, efficiency, and planning strategy. The Administrator shall work and consult with the Department of Energy and other Federal agencies to plan for particular regional conferences. The Administrator shall invite Department of Energy, State, local, tribal, and county public officials who have responsibilities for energy management or may have an interest in such conferences and shall seek the input of, and be responsive to, the views of such officials in the planning and organization of such workshops.

#### (b) Focus of workshops

Such workshops and conferences shall focus on the following (but may include other topics):

(1) Developing strategies among Federal, State, tribal, and local governments to coordinate energy management policies and to maximize available intergovernmental energy management resources within the region regarding the use of governmental facilities and buildings.

(2) The design, construction, maintenance, and retrofitting of governmental facilities to incorporate energy efficient techniques.

(3) Procurement and use of energy efficient products.

(4) Dissemination of energy information on innovative programs, technologies, and methods which have proven successful in government.

(5) Technical assistance to design and incorporate effective energy management strategies.

#### (c) Establishment of workshop timetable

As a part of the first report to be submitted pursuant to section 8262a of this title, the Administrator shall set forth the schedule for the regional energy management workshops to be conducted under this section. Not less than five such workshops shall be held by September 30, 1993, and at least one such workshop shall be held in each of the 10 Federal regions every two years beginning on September 30, 1993.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §156, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2855.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act which comprises this chapter.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: J.T. VAUGHN ENTERPRISES, 

INC. (INCORRECTLY NAMED AS J.T. 

VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION, LLC) AND 

CAPFORM, INC.,

 Relators.

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00168-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Real Party in Interest’s third motion for extension of time within 

which to file the response until September 4, 2014. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE TO 

RELATORS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS 

COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Alejandro Acosta III, the Real Party in Interest’s 

Attorney, prepare the response and forward the same to this Court on or before September 4, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7844** 

SHERINETTE WANNAMAKER, a/k/a Sheri Wannamaker , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN, Graham Correctional Institution, Camille Griffin , Respondent

- Appellee , and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Terry L. Wooten , Chief District Judge. ( 9:13

- cv
- 02934

- TLW )

Submitted : April 30, 2015 Decided: August 19, 2015

Before MOTZ and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Sherinette Wannamaker, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney s General, Alan Wilson,2 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Sherinette Wannamaker appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We previously
granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether
Wannamaker’s due process rights were violated after she was

denied a new trial. The Respondent has filed an informal
response brief addressing this claim, and Wannamaker has filed a
reply brief.
After reviewing the parties’ filings and the record on
appeal, we conclude that Wannamaker’s claim is not cognizable on

federal hab eas review. See Lawrence v. Branker , 517 F.3d 700,
717 (4th Cir. 2008) . Accordingly, although we grant Wannamaker leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the claim for
which we granted a certificate of appealability. With regard to

Wannamaker’s r emaining claims, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss that portion of 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 t he decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 100.147 Adjudication. An aggrieved person, complainant, department or agency that challenges a privilege asserted under § 100.144 may seek a determination of the existence and application of that privilege in: ( a ) A court of competent jurisdiction; or
( b ) An administrative law proceeding with appropriate jurisdiction.
[62 FR 66433, Dec. 18, 1997]
§ 232.251 Cross-reference. ( a ) All of the provisions, except § 207.258b, of part 207, subpart B of this chapter relating to mortgages insured under section 207 of the National Housing Act, apply to mortgages insured under section 232 of the Act.
( b ) For the purposes of this subpart all references in part 207 of this chapter to section 207 of the Act shall be construed to refer to section 232 of the Act.
[36 FR 24618, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 50 FR 38787, Sept. 25, 1985]