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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7760

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE HORTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 05-7863

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIE HORTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 05-7966

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus
- 2 -

WILLIE HORTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District

Judge. (CR-89-180; CA-05-1166)

Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Sue Straus, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Willie Horton seeks to appeal three district court orders

dismissing as untimely his three motions filed pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374

n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Horton has not made the requisite showing. 

Finally, in accordance with United States v. Winestock,

340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Horton’s notices of

appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization under 28

U.S.C. § 2244 (2000), to file a successive habeas corpus motion.

To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion,

a movant must show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review

by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2)
- 4 -

relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the

movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244. We conclude that Horton has

not satisfied either standard.

Accordingly, we deny Horton’s implicit application for

leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, deny his motions for the

appointment of counsel filed in Appeal Nos. 05-7760 and 05-7863,

deny Horton’s motions for a certificate of appealability, and

dismiss the appeals. 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
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Inforetech Wireless Technology,  Inc.
(the  Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert C. Silzer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.

/s/Robert C. Silzer

Robert C. Silzer
Chief Executive Officer
November 22, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

CECIL THOMAS RICE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JIM SALMONSEN, Warden, 

Montana State Prison, 

Respondent. 

OP 21-0496 FiLED 

OCT 0 5 2021 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Cecil Thomas Rice has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, indicating that 

his incarceration is illegal because he has "had no access to [his] legal materials for the 

past 30 days." He states that, without these needed documents, he cannot proceed with his 

pending appeal concerning his postconviction relief petition and that his appeal "will be 

unavoidably dismissed." Rice refers to MSP policy whereby he should have access to 

current case materials. 

Habeas corpus is not the remedy for access to legal materials. More than thirty years 

ago, we explained that this Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over many 

constitutional claims because the claims are not the cause of the incarceration. Gates v. 

Missoula Cty. Comm'rs., 235 Mont. 261, 263, 766 P.2d 884, 885 (1988). (Emphasis 

added). This Court determined that habeas corpus was not the correct remedy for 

constitutional claims, including "adequate food, shelter, clothing, medical care, exercise, 

individual security, and a law library[.]" Gates, 235 Mont. at 262, 766 P.2d at 884. 

Rice's remedy is found in a motion for extension of time. In his pending appeal, his 

opening brief was due on Thursday, October 7, 2021. See Rice v. State of Montana, 

No. DA 21-0319. We observe that Rice moved this Court for an extension in his appeal, 

and this Court granted his motion on October 1. His opening brief is now due on or before 

November 8. Therefore, 

10/05/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0496
IT IS ORDERED that Rice's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 

The Clerk also is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and 

to Cecil Thomas Rice. 

‘•k^-,

DATED this _c day of October, 2021. 

Chief Justice 

742— 

t?" 

Justices 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,453,063
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    191,909
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         215,683
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     2,209,175
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,069,830
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      779,805
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 779,805
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,500
<PREFERRED>                                    223,978<F1>
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,115,408
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  120,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     15,168
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                43,742
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,767,229
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,069,830
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      281,976
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            17,193
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     215,386
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     232,579
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         49,397
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               8,236
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  57,633
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        21,765<F2>
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,868
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        993
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   34,875
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       118,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       18,788
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         124,693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Includes $13,370 of Preferred Stock.
<F2>Includes $3,141 of Monthly Income Preferred Securities Dividend Requirements.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. Walter Cousinr, Jr. 

Sm., Toxar Board of Pharmaoy 

911 southland Llrr Annex slag. 

Dallas-l, Texan 

Your letter roqum?.tlng 

under Qato or AU& 2, 1946, relat 

*We have ha6 a rrq 

the Unlrerslty of Texas 

that that Saotion of 

other thl,nga br a 

ylng for unit 0a Staten cltlzmknow if it 18 poosalblr for 

or lloenso aa pharmaolst upon 

oitlzenshlp papern?w 

@a, Sec. 9, V.A.C .S., in part proviJe8: 

given by the State Board of ?hermoy. The applloant shall 

:xIccdagpllcetion by ;resentlng to the Seoretary of the 

on form furn:snei by t:.e Board, satisfactory sworn 

evide&e that he 1;aa attained the age of t?;enty-one (21) yeara, 
Hon. ‘Ualter Cou81118, Jr., pa66 2 

18 or good moral oharaotrr, la a oltlon of the United 

statbr, and has at lbast graduated tram a rir8t grad0 

hi,@ rohool, or ha8 a preliminary eduoktlon 8qulralent 

thereto, pomittlng nuitrloulatlon in thr Unlrrrrlty or 

T0188, and that he ha8 att6nd8d UId graduated fFOIU a 

rctutabls unirarrity, sohO 6r 00118430 of phaxaaoy 

uhioh 8I8Ot8 with th6 rrquirsnents Of ttc Board, and 

8ha1l h&T8 had at 1888t OIL8 (1) y8aF Of praOtlOti 

8sporlmor in a retail pharmaoy undar tha dlrrot 

rupertirlon or a registwrd pharmaoLt. . . . 

". . . 

". . . Proridrd that thr State Board of Phanuoy 

may In its diroretlon, upon th8 paymant 0r Trmprire 

(;25,OO) Dollarr, grant a lioenrr to praotioa pharmaoy 

to ~brsonr who ruralrh proof that thsr hare b88n regl8- 

a8 8UOh in 801118 othrr 8tat8 OF tWritOry, alId that 

they ar8 or good rm>ral oharaotrr, prorldsd that ruoh 

other Board in itr~~oramination rrquirrd ths a81118 g8noral 

dogroe Of fitne88 r 

Y 

Ulred by thlr 8tat0, rSd yMt8 tho 

88m6 reoiproOal priv 1*68 t0 pharIMoi8tr Of thlr 8tat8." 

Although WI have qUOt8d the h8t 88nt8llO8 O# 980. 9, 

which rert8 Qlroretion la She Board a8 to oortala r8ofprooal 

pririlogrr to out 0r Statc, or territory l Bplioant8, your 

r8qU88t rd808 UO qUO8tiOIl undrr 8hl8 prOli80, a8 th8 8Qplloant 18 a non-rrglrtrmt eltizrn 0r a South Amrrloaa rountry. 

one 0r the 8pOOlilO requlrementr r*t rorth in 900. 9 

18 that raoh l pplloant on hi8 applloation tom turnl8hed br 

the Board eh811 proeent ratl8taotory 8worn rrldsnor that he 18 

l OitiZOn Or thr United state8. The tiling or an applloatlon 

for oltlzenshlp papsrm would not meet this requlrrmcnt. Wo 

find no prcvlslon in tizs law, Section 9 br el8ewhere, authorlzlng the State Board of Flmrmoy to waive this requlrwnent. 

An8wsring yam request, it ia tL.6 opinion of thla 

Department that lo order :O take tte exar&xtlon for a llosnse 

as a pharmaoiet, an cpplioant Ituet furnish satisfeotory 8worn 

erldenoe that he 1s a oitfzen of the Unite& States, a8 required 

in Sec. 9, krt . l+542a, V. A,. C. 5. 

_ .. 

Ysurs nry truly 

WJFX: Ahfb:
Independent Auditors' Consent


Board of Directors and Shareholders
  of Timberline Software Corporation
Beaverton, Oregon


We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements Nos.
33-46716  and  33-69820  on Form S-8 of our  report  dated  January  21,  2000
appearing  in  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  Timberline   Software
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Portland, Oregon
March 28, 2000
**Exhibit 23**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

The Board of Directors 

FNB Corp. 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-72686,333-54702, 333-99333, 333-105442 and 333-109450) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 33-59565) on Form S-3 of FNB Corp. of our report dated March 12, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of FNB Corp. and subsidiaries asof December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in theDecember 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of FNB Corp. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

March 12, 2004 

Greenville, South Carolina
#### § 252.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this part as “the DoD Components”).
### Faulk. Scott (OST)
From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Subject:

Good Morning Mr. Faulk, fandc99@aol.com Tuesday, January 

### 28, 2014 1:05 PM Faulk, Scott (OST); fandc99@aol.com Aloha, a moment ofyourtime. .l j ••**·-~, -~-+** **:~.~ ~·'·**  ; - < _j

My reason for writing is to testify on behalf of Mokulele Airlines becoming the Essential Air Service providerfor the Kalaupapa peninsula. I have resided Moloka'i Topside for nearly 10 years. Mokulele Airlines is one ofthe most community minded citizens in the Hawaii Business arena. The staffon Moloka'i is ohana to all of us. Courteous, economical, and most ofall problem solvers. In my experience the company does Everything it possible can to help both the casual, business, citizen traveler. Despite competition from airlines w/largeraircraft, Mokulelejust keeps doing what they do, day after day, flight after flight. They deserve the contract for the Essential Air Service as reward, ifyou will, for dedicated, friendly service. Best, Frank Parrino 

### 35 Ka'ana Maunaloa, Moloka'i Hl96770 

### 808 658-047 4

1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11293]

                    The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation has renewed its charter for a period of two years. This Advisory Committee will continue to make recommendations to the Historian and the Department of State on all aspects of the Department's program to publish the                     *Foreign Relations of the United States*                     series as well as on the Department's responsibility under statute (22 U.S.C. 4351,                     *et seq.*) to open its 25-year old and older records for public review at the National Archives and Records Administration. The Committee consists of nine members drawn from among historians, political scientists, archivists, international lawyers, and other social scientists who are distinguished in the field of U.S. foreign relations.                

                    Questions concerning the Committee and the renewal of its Charter should be directed to Adam M. Howard, Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, Department of State, Office of the Historian, 2300 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20372 (Navy Potomac Annex), telephone (202) 955-0214 (email                     *history@state.gov*).                

The Charter was renewed on December 16, 2020.

                    For further information about the Board, please contact Adam Howard, Executive Secretary, Office of the Historian at                     *History@state.gov.*

Renee A. Goings,

Deputy Director, Office of the Historian, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2020-28867 Filed 12-29-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
#### § 939.823 Special performance standards—operations on prime farmland.

Part 823 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Operations on Prime Farmland,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining and reclamation operations on prime farmlands.
### §983. Inspection technology and training

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, and appropriate representatives of other Federal agencies, may provide technical assistance, equipment, and training to facilitate the implementation of supply chain security measures at ports designated under the Container Security Initiative.

#### (b) Acquisition and training

Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Secretary may—

(1) lease, loan, provide, or otherwise assist in the deployment of nonintrusive inspection and radiation detection equipment at foreign land and sea ports under such terms and conditions as the Secretary prescribes, including nonreimbursable loans or the transfer of ownership of equipment; and

(2) provide training and technical assistance for domestic or foreign personnel responsible for operating or maintaining such equipment.

(Pub. L. 109–347, title II, §233(a), Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1917; Pub. L. 115–254, div. J, §1816(e)(1), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3541.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–254, which directed the general amendment of "section 233 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 983)", was executed by generally amending section 233(a) of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, which comprises this section, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Prior to amendment, section read as follows:

"(1) In general.—The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, and appropriate representatives of other Federal agencies, may provide technical assistance, equipment, and training to facilitate the implementation of supply chain security measures at ports designated under the Container Security Initiative.

"(2) Acquisition and training.—Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Secretary may—

"(A) lease, loan, provide, or otherwise assist in the deployment of nonintrusive inspection and radiation detection equipment at foreign land and sea ports under such terms and conditions as the Secretary prescribes, including nonreimbursable loans or the transfer of ownership of equipment; and

"(B) provide training and technical assistance for domestic or foreign personnel responsible for operating or maintaining such equipment."
1

Order filed February 27, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00901-CV

____________

BARBARA ULMER, Appellant

V.

DEREK ANTHONY JENKINS, SR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-44247

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed November 23, 2013. On December 5, 2013,

appellant notified this court that she had requested supplementation of the clerk’s 

record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). To date, the supplemental clerk’s record has 

not been filed. Accordingly, we issue the following order:

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s 

record on or before March 14, 2014, containing the following:
2

1. Respondent Barbara Ulmer’s Request for Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of law, filed on or about August 13, 2013;

2. Respondent Bara Ulmer’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law, filed on or about August 13, 2013;

3. Respondent Barbara Ulmer’s Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, filed on or about September 3, 2013; and

4. The trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

If any omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
#### § 222.3 Definitions.

Unless otherwise noted, these terms and their definitions are for the purpose of this part.

*Foreign Government Information (FGI).* Defined in DoD 5200.1-R (available at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001r.pdf*).

*Formal Control System.* A system designed to ensure DoD Component accountability and compliance. For each MDR request, the system shall contain, at a minimum, a unique tracking number, requester's name and organizational affiliation, information requested, date of receipt, and date of closure.

*Formerly Restricted Data.* Defined in DoD 5200.1-R.

*MDR.* The review of classified information for declassification in response to a declassification request that meets the requirements under section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information,” December 29, 2009.

*Restricted Data.* Defined in DoD 5200.1-R.