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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:20-cv-01310-PJM)

Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 25, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice his second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion because he did not receive 

authorization from this court. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Elliott has not made 

the requisite showing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994 WITH REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,215,711
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,072,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,266,935
<PP&E>                                       6,599,737
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,866,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,035,380
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,247
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,822,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,866,672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           123,876,673
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              121,150,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,726,174
<INCOME-TAX>                               (4,235,800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,961,974
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,961,974
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Robert Warner, Appellant, v. Laurence Kenan, Respondent.

Motion granted to prosecute appeal as a poor person and Victor V. Augustine, Jr., Esq., assigned as attorney to eonduet appeal.
§ 236.6 General provisions of DoD's DIB CS Program. ( a ) Confidentiality of information that is exchanged under the DIB CS Program will be protected to the maximum extent authorized by law, regulation, and policy. DoD and DIB CS Program participants each bear responsibility for their own actions under the voluntary DIB CS Program.
( b ) All DIB CS Program participants may participate in the Department of Homeland Security's Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS) program (*https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/programs/enhanced-cybersecurity-services-ecs*).
( c ) Participation in the voluntary DIB CS Program does not obligate the DIB CS Program participant to utilize the GFI in, or otherwise to implement any changes to, its information systems. Any action taken by the DIB CS Program participant based on the GFI or other participation in this program is taken on the DIB CS Program participant's own volition and at its own risk and expense.
( d ) A DIB CS Program participant's participation in the voluntary DIB CS Program is not intended to create any unfair competitive advantage or disadvantage in DoD source selections or competitions, or to provide any other form of unfair preferential treatment, and shall not in any way be represented or interpreted as a Government endorsement or approval of the DIB CS Program participant, its information systems, or its products or services.
( e ) The DIB CS Program participant and the Government may each unilaterally limit or discontinue participation in the voluntary DIB CS Program at any time. Termination shall not relieve the DIB CS Program participant or the Government from obligations to continue to protect against the unauthorized use or disclosure of GFI, attribution information, contractor proprietary information, third-party proprietary information, or any other information exchanged under this program, as required by law, regulation, contract, or the FA.
( f ) Upon termination of the FA, change of status as a defense contractor, and/or change of Facility Security Clearance (FCL) status below Secret, GFI must be returned to the Government or destroyed pursuant to direction of, and at the discretion of, the Government.
( g ) Participation in these activities does not abrogate the Government's, or the DIB CS Program participants' rights or obligations regarding the handling, safeguarding, sharing, or reporting of information, or regarding any physical, personnel, or other security requirements, as required by law, regulation, policy, or a valid legal contractual obligation. However, participation in the voluntary activities of the DIB CS Program does not eliminate the requirement for DIB CS Program participants to report cyber incidents in accordance with § 236.4.
[80 FR 59584, Oct. 2, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 68317, Oct. 4, 2016; 89 FR 17748, Mar. 12, 2024]
###### Editorial Note on Part 816

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 816 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 816.100 Contemporaneous reclamation.

Reclamation efforts, including but not limited to backfilling, grading, topsoil replacement, and revegetation, on all land that is disturbed by surface mining activities shall occur as contemporaneously as practicable with mining operations, except when such mining operations are conducted in accordance with a variance for concurrent surface and underground mining activities issued under § 785.18 of this chapter.

[48 FR 24652, June 1, 1983, as amended at 56 FR 65635, Dec. 17, 1991; 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017]
April 14, 1977.

M. P. No. 76-165.

#### William D. Mello *v.*Superior Court *et al.*

*William F. Reilly,*Public Defender, *Edward J. Mulligan, Barbara Hurst,*Asst. Public Defenders, for plaintiff.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Gregory L. Benik,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for defendants.

The petition of William D. Mello for reargument is denied.

Bevilacqua, C. J., not participating.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ELENA ARAUJO

- BULEJE,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 70486

Agency No. A200

- 877

- 702

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 11, 2018 ** Portland, Oregon

Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, *** District Judge.

Maria Elena Araujo

- Buleje , a native and citizen of Peru , petitions for review

of t he Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

AUG 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. As the parties

are familiar with the facts , we do not re count them here. We dismiss in part and

deny in part the petition for review

.
Even assuming that Arau

jo

- Buleje was credible and that her asylum

application was timely, we lack jurisdiction to consider Araujo

- Buleje’s claim that

she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal on account of her

membership in the particular social group of her family. Ar a u jo

- Buleje argues that

the BIA erred in deeming her family claim abandoned, but fails to cite any place in

the record where she raised it to the BIA. Because Araujo

- Buleje failed to exhaust

her family claim before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Arsdi v.

Holder , 659 F.3d 925, 928

- 29 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly held that

failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust

remedies with res pect to that question and deprives this court of j urisdiction to hear

the matter.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In addition, Araujo

- Buleje has waived any challenge to the BIA’s rejectio n

of her claim that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal on account

of her membership in the particular social group of pharmacists who refuse to

participate in drug trafficking by failing to argue the issue in her brief to this court

.

Se e Diego v. Sessions , 857 F.3d 1005, 1015 n.4 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that issue s

not “specifically and distinctly argued and raised” in an opening brief are waived3

(citation omitted) )

. Likewise, Araujo

- Buleje has waived any challenge to the

BIA’s determi nation that she abandoned her claim under the Co nvention Against

Torture.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN

PART

.
1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2267

___________ John V. Goetz, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 18, 2006 Filed: June 2, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John V. Goetz appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. As relevant to the instant appeal, Goetz alleged disability since June 2001 from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). After a hearing, an administrative law judge (A LJ) determined that (1) Goetz’s OCD and other medical problems were severe but not of listing-level severity; (2) his subjective complaints were not fully credible; and (3) his residual functional capacity (RFC)-2- precluded his past relevant work, but he could perform jobs a vocational expert identified in response to a hypothetical. The Appeals Council denied review, and the district court affirmed. Goetz’s only argument on appeal is that the ALJ erred by not adopting the mental RFC opinion of treating psychiatrist Elsa Remer, who rated many of Goetz’s work-related abilities as poor or markedly limited. We find that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Remer’s opinion. See Goff v. Barnhart , 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005) (treating physician’s opinion does not automatically control because record must be evaluated as whole); Ellis v. Barnhart , 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005) (while medical source opinions are considered in assessing RFC, final RFC determination is left to ALJ). We agree w ith the ALJ that there were inconsistencies between Dr. Remer’s RFC assessment and he r treatment notes. Further, it appears that Goetz’s decision to stop taking his prescribed medications at one point caused him to deteriorate and re quire hospitalization, see Brown v. Barnhart , 390 F.3d 535, 540-41 (8th Cir. 2004) (ALJ wa s free not to give controlling weight to treating physician’s opinion because claimant was noncompliant with prescribed treatment; if impairment can be controlled by medicati on, it cannot be viewed as disabling); and as the district court noted, Dr. Remer di d not discourage Goetz from seeking work, and she drafted her RFC opinion eight months after the period to which it related. Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Goetz’s motion to supplement the record with evidence that is unrelated to the period at issue here.

______________________________
### §21007. Authorization of appropriations

#### (a) In general

In addition to amounts transferred under section 20904(c) of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated for requirements payments under this subpart the following amounts:

(1) For fiscal year 2003, $1,400,000,000.

(2) For fiscal year 2004, $1,000,000,000.

(3) For fiscal year 2005, $600,000,000.

(4) For fiscal year 2010 and subsequent fiscal years, such sums as are necessary for purposes of making requirements payments to States to carry out the activities described in section 21001(b)(3) of this title.

#### (b) Availability

Any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authority of subsection (a) shall remain available without fiscal year limitation until expended.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title II, §257, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1697; Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title V, §588(c), Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2334.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15407 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

2009—Subsec. (a)(4). Pub. L. 111–84 added par. (4).
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Glacier visitor guide: park news, the official newspaper of Glacier NationalPark**
 
2011 | 2013
2014-15:Summer | Winter
2015-16:Summer | Winter
2016-17:Summer | Winter
2018 | 2019
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.21/2:G 45/2/
Item Number:0650-A-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000984390
 
May 29, 2018
### §2305. Responsibility of the Government Accountability Office

If requested by either House of the Congress (or any committee thereof), or if considered necessary by the Comptroller General, the Government Accountability Office shall conduct audits and reviews to assure compliance with the laws, rules, and regulations governing employment in the executive branch and in the competitive service and to assess the effectiveness and soundness of Federal personnel management.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title I, §101(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1118, §2304; amended Pub. L. 102–378, §2(6), Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1346; Pub. L. 104–66, title II, §2181(e), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 732; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814; renumbered §2305, Pub. L. 112–199, title I, §109(a)(1), Nov. 27, 2012, 126 Stat. 1470.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2305 was renumbered section 2306 of this title.

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–199 renumbered section 2304 of this title as this section.

2004—Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office" in section catchline and text.

1995—Pub. L. 104–66 struck out subsec. (a) designation before "If requested by" and struck out subsec. (b) which read as follows: "The General Accounting Office shall prepare and submit an annual report to the President and the Congress on the activities of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Office of Personnel Management. The report shall include a description of—

"(1) significant actions taken by the Board to carry out its functions under this title; and

"(2) significant actions of the Office of Personnel Management, including an analysis of whether or not the actions of the Office are in accord with merit system principles and free from prohibited personnel practices."

1992—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–378 substituted "The" for "the" at beginning of first sentence.
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 24.1

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature
appears above constitutes and appoints Debra Smithart his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and, for him and in
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities to sign any and all
amendments to this Report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full power
and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or their substitute or substitutes, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this
Report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and
in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Dated:  April 24, 1998                   By:  /s/ Thomas A. Price
                                              ---------------------------
                                                  Thomas A. Price
                                         President, Chief Executive Officer 
                                         and Director (Principal Executive
                                                  Financial Officer)


Dated:  April 27, 1998                   By: /s/ Donald V. Strough 
                                             ----------------------------
                                                 Donald V. Strough   
                                         Chairman of the Board of Directors


Dated:  April 27, 1998                   By: /s/ Jean-Marc Chapus
                                             ---------------------------- 
                                                 Jean-Marc Chapus
                                                     Director

Dated:  April 30, 1998                   By: /s/ W. Bruce Bercovich 
                                             ---------------------------- 
                                                 W. Bruce Bercovich 
                                                     Director
# C_2010328EN.01005801.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/58

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Vivier v Commission

(Case F-29/05) (1)

1

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Classification in grade - Grades laid down in the call for applications - Amendment of the rules governing classification of staff - Transitional provisions - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Application by analogy)

2010/C 328/91

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Vivier (Petten, Netherlands) (represented by: initially, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen and É. Marchal, lawyers, subsequently by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, H. Krämer and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 at the time of his recruitment as a member of the temporary staff

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the European Commission’s classification decision, as annexed to the amendment of 21 July 2004 to the temporary staff contract signed by Mr Vivier on 10 June 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the European Commission’s classification decision, as annexed to the amendment of 21 July 2004 to the temporary staff contract signed by Mr Vivier on 10 June 2004;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Vivier. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Mr Vivier.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 31. (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-196/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005.)

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 30, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00689

- CV

IN THE INT OF GM , AM AND NM

,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2011

- PA

- 02693
John D. Gab riel Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

T he Appellee ’ s Motion for Ext ension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The appelle e ’ s bri ef is due on February 17, 2014.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han d and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 30th day of January, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
§ 203.6 Cost principles. ( a ) Non-profit contractors must comply with the cost principles in OMB Circular A-122. Copies of the circular may be obtained from EOP Publications, 725 17th NW, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503.
( b ) For-profit contractors and subcontractors must comply with the cost principles in the FAR (48 CFR part 31).