alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 10380 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Marcel Mallory,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22

- CR

- 333

- 4

**______________________ ________**  Before **Willett, Duncan,** and **Ramirez,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****
The attorney appointed to represent Marcel Mallory has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mallory has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to al low us to make a fair evaluation of Mallory ’s claim of ineffective assistance

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 30, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-10380 Document: 00517049128 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2024No. 23

- 10380

2 of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim wit hout prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mallory ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , couns el is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R**

. 42.2. Case: 23-10380 Document: 00517049128 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2024
~D UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 

# \ 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

~ PRO~ October 15, 2014
Dennehotso Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation P.O. Box 2301 Dennehotso, AZ 86535 ATTN: ADMIN OFFICE Subject: Request to retain public documents atthe Dennehotso Chapter for public

inspection To Whom It May Concern: The purpose ofthis letter is to request thatthe Dennehotso Chapter ofthe Navajo Nation Reservation retain the enclosed documents atthe Dennehotso Chapter House forat least sixty (60) days for public inspection. These documents are the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s preliminary decision forthe proposed Clean AirAct Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration amendmentpermit forthe McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation nearthe city of Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. These documents are currently available forpublic comment. Please contact me at (415) 947-4156 or kelly.shaheerah(~epa.gov ifyou have any questions. Sinc”l, ~j 

# 4/4
Shaheerah Ke y, Environmental Engineer Permits Office Air Division
Enclosures
EXHIBIT
23.2
   
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
  
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-108162, 333-118976, 333-118977, 333-124964,
333-143203 and 333-143204) of Noble Energy, Inc. of our reportdated February 13, 2009,
relating to the financial statements of Alba Plant LLC, which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.
 
  /s/
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
  
 
 Houston,
TX
 February
16, 2009
  1
§ 1486.100 General purpose and scope. ( a ) The E (Kika) de la Garza Emerging Markets Program (EMP) is established to develop, maintain, or expand markets for exports of United States agricultural commodities and to promote cooperation and exchange of information between agricultural institutions and agribusinesses in the United States and emerging markets. While the program is primarily intended to support the export market development efforts of the private sector, the program's resources may also be used to assist public agricultural organizations.
( b ) This part sets forth the general terms, conditions, and policies governing the Commodity Credit Corporation's (CCC) operation of the EMP.
( c ) ( 1 ) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance on Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200. In 2 CFR 400.1, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) adopted OMB's guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by 2 CFR part 400, as USDA policies and procedures for uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements for Federal awards.
( 2 ) The OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by 2 CFR part 400 and this part, applies to the EMP.
( 3 ) In addition to the provisions of this part, other regulations that are generally applicable to grants and cooperative agreements of USDA, including the applicable regulations set forth in 2 CFR chapters I, II, IV, also apply to the EMP, to the extent that these regulations do not directly conflict with the provisions of this part. The provisions of the CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714 *et seq.*) and any other statutory or regulatory provisions that are generally applicable to CCC also apply to the EMP.
( d ) Under the EMP, CCC provides grants to eligible U.S. private or government entities who demonstrate a role or interest in the export of U.S. agricultural commodities to conduct assessments of food and rural business system needs of emerging markets, make recommendations on measures necessary to enhance the effectiveness of such systems, including potential reductions in trade barriers, and identify and carry out specific opportunities and projects to enhance the effectiveness of such systems. The EMP may only be used to support exports of U.S. agricultural commodities through generic activities.
( e ) Only initiatives that support the export of U.S. agricultural commodities are eligible for assistance under the program. The program's resources may not be used to support the export of another country's products to the United States or another country, or to promote the development of a foreign economy as a primary objective.
( f ) The EMP generally operates on a reimbursement basis. The program is administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) acting on behalf of CCC.
( g ) EMP recipients are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations.
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ James E. MinarikJames E. MinarikAugust 14, 2006
    Chief Executive Officer
#### Dubovsky & Sons, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Leonard Schwartz, Appellant-Respondent.

In an action to recover a sum of money allegedly due and owing under an unconditional suretyship agreement, which action was commenced by service of a summons with notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 11, 1979, which, upon reargument, modified its prior order granting plaintiff summary judgment in the amount of $46,813, by reducing the sum upon which summary judgment would be granted to $21,813 and directing that a trial be held as to the balance of the claimed indebtedness. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion for summary judgment denied, and order dated July 27, 1979 and judgments entered August 20, 1979 and October 24, 1979, respectively, vacated, without prejudice to the making of any further motion for summary judgment upon the joinder of *803issue. Plaintiff is directed to serve and file a complaint within 20 days after the service upon it of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof, and the defendant is directed to interpose his answer within 20 days thereafter. All subsequent pleadings and pretrial procedures shall be governed by the appropriate provisions of the CPLR. Defendant’s continuing, unconditional guarantee of the present and future indebtedness of Mendez & Schwartz, Inc. (of which he is a principal) to the corporate plaintiff, Dubovsky & Sons, Inc., for goods sold and delivered by the latter to the former is not "an instrument for the payment of money only” upon which summary relief pursuant to CPLR 3213 may be granted. Thus, as the Appellate Division, Third Department, observed in *McNeilly v Rogers*(58 AD2d 724, 725): "[In order f]or plaintiff to prevail on his motion, his action must be 'based upon an instrument for the payment of money only’ (CPLR 3213), and, as such, he must be able to prove a prima facie case *merely by proof of the instrument and defendant’s failure to make payments in accordance with its terms (Interman Ind. Prods, v R.S.M. Electron Power,*37 NY2d 151; *Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach. Corp.,*31 AD2d 136).” (Emphasis supplied.) In the instant case, however, additional proof dehors the instrument will be necessary in order for the plaintiff to prevail, as it must be established that there is an existing, unsatisfied indebtedness of the principal debtor for which the defendant must answer, i.e., that there actually were goods sold and delivered to the corporate debtor for which it remains liable. It is for this reason that relief pursuant to CPLR 3213 must be denied (see *McNeilly v Rogers, supra;*cf. *Rhodia, Inc. v Steel,*32 AD2d 753 [unconditional guarantee of a promissory note]). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
§ 1900.156 Special handling—processing. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Eligibility determination.* The designated processing official reviews the application and develops additional data as necessary. Upon determination of whether the assistance will be provided, the designated processing official notifies the applicant of the decision in writing under program regulations, subpart A of part 1910 of this chapter, and subpart B of part 1900. If the determination is favorable, unless otherwise designated, the complete application is returned to the original processing official for docket preparation. If the determination is unfavorable, the designated processing official as decisionmaker participates in the appeal process to its conclusion.
( c ) - ( e ) [Reserved]
( f ) *Closing agent.* Unless there is a clear or apparent conflict of interest, closing will be at a location and by a closing agent chosen by the recipient.
( g ) *Supervised bank account.* Unless there is a clear or apparent conflict of interest, any supervised bank account (or construction account) is established at a financial institution chosen by the recipient under subpart A of part 1902 of this chapter. Countersignature authority is delegated only to a nonrelated or nonassociated Rural Development official.
( h ) *Construction inspection.* Construction inspections are delegated to a nonrelated or nonassociated employee authorized to conduct inspections, whose duty station is nearest the construction site. The designated processing/servicing official notifies the builder (or architect/engineer) in writing of how and from whom to request inspections.
[58 FR 224, Jan. 5, 1993, as amended at 80 FR 9868, Feb. 24, 2015]
#### § 1789.150 Purpose.

This part sets forth policies and the procedures for implementing subsection (c) of section 18 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.*)(RE Act) which authorizes the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to use the services of Consultants funded by the Borrowers to facilitate timely action on Applications by Borrowers for financial assistance and other approvals.
EXHIBIT 23-1 CONSENT OF    INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM         he Board of Directors and Stockholders    The Navigators Group, Inc.     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statements    No. 33-51608,No. 333-97183,No. 333-106317    and    333-125124    on    Form S-8    of The Navigators Group, Inc. and subsidiaries, our report dated    February 20, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance    sheets of The Navigators Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of    December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated    statements of income, stockholders’ equity, comprehensive    income and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year    period ended December 31, 2007, and all related financial    statements schedules, and the effectiveness of internal control    over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which    reports appear in the December 31, 2007 annual report on    Form 10-K    of The Navigators Group, Inc. and subsidiaries.     KPMG LLP     New York, New York    February 20, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6638

MICHAEL T. BRAXTON,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOETTE D. SCARBOROUGH, South Carolina Department of Corrections Central 

Class Director; A. BOYD; C. YORK; DONNIE STONEBREAKER; MS. 

HENDRIX; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of South Carolina Department of 

Corrections; MICHAEL STOBBE; LETTIE JACOBS; MRS./MS. BAKER; 

MRS./MS. PRICE; TERESA S. PLAYER; GEORGE M. DUCWORTH; GERALD 

BLACK; DON A. THOMPSON; MRS./MS. FREEMAN,

 Defendants - Appellees.

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

Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-01106-HMH)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 22, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael T. Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Michael T. Braxton appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Braxton v. Scarborough, No. 8:22-cv01106-HMH (D.S.C. May 17, 2022). In addition, we note that numerous claims are raised 

by Braxton for the first time on appeal. We decline to consider these claims. See Muth v. 

United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first time 

on appeal generally will not be considered, absent exceptional circumstances of plain error 

or fundamental miscarriage of justice); First Virginia Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil, 

Inc., 206 F.3d 404, 407 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000) (declining to consider issues raised for first time 

on 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6638 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 17 , 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00125

- CV

RITA LEMONS , Appellant

V.

HOUSTON POLICE DEPAR TMENT, ET

. AL

. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1003584



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

This appeal is from a judgment signed February 5, 2012. No clerk’s record has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court appellant did not make ar rangements to pay for the record.
On April 13, 2012, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).2

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Brown.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 1430.425 Violations regarding controlled substances.

The provisions of 7 CFR 718.6 apply to this part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1980.1006-1980.1009 [Reserved]
§ 201.23 Seller and buyer information. Consumer packages or containers of agricultural seed for interstate shipment must be labeled as follows: ( a ) The full name and address of the interstate shipper or a code designation identifying the interstate shipper, pursuant to § 201.24, must be printed on the label.
( b ) If pursuant to paragraph (a) only a code is used to identify the interstate shipper, the full name and address of the consignee must appear on the label.
( c ) For purposes of this section and § 201.24, the term *shipper* means the seller or consignor who puts the seed into interstate commerce, and the term *consignee* means the buyer or recipient of the seed shipment.
[85 FR 40579, July 7, 2020]
#### Boon *vs.*Nelson’s Heirs.

Debt,

A distributee may divest himself of interest, and become a competent witness, by releasing the executor.

Suit by an executor; plea of *payment,*and issue thereon: a distributee is a competent witness for the executor; for a judgment against him, upon that plea, would tend to show him accountable, not to exonerate him from liability to, the distributees; nor would it increase their liability to creditors of the decedent, as the distributees are only accountable for what they have received.

(Messrs. MoroheadandBrawn&r Plaintiff: Mr. Chinn for the Defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Fayette County.

*November*6.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Cotirt.

In 1831, William Boon sued Nelson’s heirs, on a bond Tor money, which had been given, in 1806, by the ancestor of the defendants, to the plaintiff, for property which the plaintiff, as executor of his deceased father, had sold, and the ancestor of the defendants had bought.

*392The defendants pleaded payment, and, for proof,. lied altogether on tho presumption arising from the lapse 6f. time.

To repel that presumption, by proving anaeknowledgment within less than twenty jTcars, and other facts, the plaintiff offered as a witness on the trial, his brother, who is one of. the distributees of his deceased father’s estate, and who had released nil his interest ¡herein to the plaintiff. But the circuit court, being of the opinion, that the witness was incompetent, would hot permit him to testify ; and thereupon verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of the defendants.

*We*cannot concur with the circuit court. The release divested the witness of all interest in the event of the suit.

But under the peculiar circumstances of this case, had there been no release, the ground of his supposed incompetency is not perceived. The bond is the individual property of the plaintiff; 51ml, though the consideration came from the estate of his testator, a judgment on the issue, in bar of his action on the bond, would not exonerate him from liability to the distributees for the amouut of it, but would rather fix that responsibility more certainly.

A judgment in this case, against the plaintiff, could not increase the liability of the witness to creditors of his father ; because he would be liable only for what *he*had received. We are therefore of the opinion, *that the*witness is competent.

We are, also, of the opinion, that the circuit court did not err in setting aside a former verdict for the defendants, because the record furnishes no. sufficient ground for complaining of that decision.

Wherefore, the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Nicor
Inc.
 Form
10-K
 Exhibit
10.58
  
 SECOND
AMENDMENT
 TO
 NORTHERN
ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY
 DIRECTORS’
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
  WHEREAS,
Northern Illinois Gas Company d/b/a Nicor Gas Company (the “Company”) previously
established the Northern Illinois Gas Company Directors’ Deferred Compensation
Plan, as amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”);
and
  WHEREAS,
the Company desires to amend the Plan to provide for a one time election to
receive in-service distributions.
  NOW
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new Section
11:
  “SECTION
11. One Time Withdrawal Election. Notwithstanding anything contained in this
Plan to the contrary, a Director may prior to December 31, 2008 file pursuant to
the election permitted under Section 2 for 2008, a one-time election to have all
or any portion of the balance of his deferred compensation account as of
December 31, 2008 (plus interest and dividend equivalents thereon) distributed
and paid out to him in a lump sum on May 1, 2009 (the “Payment Date”). Such
election shall include whether such distribution will be from amounts credited
with the interest equivalent option or the share unit option. If such an
election is made and the Director’s deferred compensation account is credited
with the interest equivalent under Section 3.3, then such Directors’ deferred
compensation account shall be credited with interest through the date
immediately prior to the Payment Date. If the Directors’ deferred compensation
account is denominated in share units, then such share units shall be converted
to the cash equivalent based on the closing market composite price for the
Company’s common stock as reported on the New York Stock Exchange Composite
Transactions on the last trading day prior to the Payment Date. Any election
under this Section 11 shall not apply to any amounts credited to a Director’s
deferred compensation account for retainers or meeting fees for service in 2009.
An election to receive a partial distribution of a Director’s deferred
compensation account under this Section 11, shall not impact a Director’s
election as to the manner and date of payment of the remaining portion of the
Director’s deferred compensation account. A Director who receives full payment
of his deferred compensation account pursuant to an election under this Section
11 and who subsequently elects to defer compensation under this Plan, shall in
such subsequent deferral election under Section 2, specify the manner and date
on which the Director elects to receive payment of the amount to be so deferred
under Subsection 3.1.”
 
 FURTHER,
this Second Amendment to the Plan shall be effective on the date approved by the
Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company.
  In all
other respects the Plan, as amended by the First and Second Amendments thereto
shall remain in full force and effect.