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

_________________ 

Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) 1 

Opinion in Chambers 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, 

pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 23A843 

PETER K. NAVARRO v. UNITED STATES 

ON APPLICATION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL 

[March 18, 2024]

 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, Circuit Justice. 

The application for release pending appeal under 18 

U. S. C. §3143(b) is denied. This application concerns only

the question whether the applicant, Peter Navarro, has met 

his burden to establish his entitlement to relief under the 

Bail Reform Act. The Court of Appeals disposed of the proceeding on the ground that Navarro “forfeited” any argument in this release proceeding challenging the District

Court’s conclusion that “executive privilege was not invoked,” “forfeited any challenge” to the conclusion that relief would not be required in any event because of the qualified nature of executive privilege, and “forfeited any 

challenge” to the conclusion that apart from executive privilege, he was still obligated to appear before Congress and 

answer questions seeking information outside the scope of 

the asserted privilege. Order in No. 24–3006 (DC, Mar. 14, 

2024). I see no basis to disagree with the determination 

that Navarro forfeited those arguments in the release proceeding, which is distinct from his pending appeal on the 

merits.
FILED

August 19, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appe llate Court C lerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

KENNETH RAY MAYFIELD, SR. ) BRADLEY CIRCUIT

)

Plaintiff/Appellee ) NO. 03A01-9803-CV-00112

)

v. ) HON. JOHN B. HAGLER, JR.

) JUDGE

NANCY PRECELLA MAYFIELD, )

)

Defendant/Appellant )

ORDER ON PETITION TO REHEAR OR RECONSIDER

Appellant seeks rehearing or reconsideration of the memorandum opinion

filed by this Court on July 30, 1998, and for cause avers that “no marital

dissolution agreement was ever signed or entered by the parties. The parties

simply appeared before the court and announced an agreement to the court.”

Further, that “wife, nor her counsel, had no time to retract the agreement at that

time, as it was not learned by counsel, until the next day, that the verbal agreement

which Wife stated before the court had actually been coerced by Husband under

duress.”

The record contains no transcript of the proceedings before the trial judge.

Counsel for appellant provided in his appellate brief the following version of the

events at trial which, for the purpose of considering this petition, we shall adopt

as true:

“Both parties and their counsel appeared before the Court on the

morning of September 5, 1997. Counsel for Wife explained to the

Court they had agreed to a divorce based on stipulated grounds. The

parties had very few items of personal property and no real property.

Basically, the agreement granted Wife a divorce on the grounds of

inappropriate martial [sic] conduct. It further provided Husband

would pay the parties’ debts, would provide Wife with a vehicle,
1

 Indeed the terms of the agreement as described by the appellant indicate

that she successfully negotiated in her own behalf.

2

would reimburse a portion of Wife’s attorneys fees and would pay

rehabilitative alimony for a period of two years. The agreement also

provided for reasonable step-parent visitation. Counsel for Wife

announced to the Court that it had been Wife’s intention to non-suit

her counter-complaint and proceed to defending herself against the

divorce, on the basis he had no grounds for divorce. The Court

placed both parties under oath and they agreed this was their

agreement.”

Upon reconsideration, we find that Appellant was at all times represented

by able counsel, and that although she may have chosen not to fully apprise him

of the facts, she had ample opportunity to notify him or the trial judge of any

unusual circumstances surrounding the parties’ agreement.1 This she failed to do,

or she has simply changed her mind. The Petition for Rehearing is accordingly

denied with costs assessed to the petitioner.

_______________________________

William H. Inman, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

_______________________________

Herschel P. Franks, Judge

_______________________________

Don T. McMurray, Judge
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.7 Authority to supervise and direct.

Unless specifically reserved, or otherwise delegated (including delegations of legal functions to the General Counsel at § 2.31), the delegations of authority to each general officer of the Department and each agency head contained in this part includes the authority to direct and supervise the employees engaged in the conduct of activities under such official's jurisdiction, and the authority to take any action, execute any document, authorize any expenditure, promulgate any rule, regulation, order, or instruction required by or authorized by law and deemed by the general officer or agency head to be necessary and proper to the discharge of his or her responsibilities. This authority will be exercised subject to applicable administrative directives. Unless otherwise provided, a general officer or agency head may, subject to his or her continuing responsibility for the proper discharge of delegations made to him, in this part, delegate and provide for the redelegation of his or her authority to appropriate officers and employees. Subject to the general supervision of the Secretary, agency heads who are delegated authority from a general officer, in this part, report to and are under the supervision of that general officer.

[60 FR 56393, Nov. 8, 1995, as amended at 83 FR 22179, May 14, 2018]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6502

ANTHONY GERALD FLEMING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA00-2863-DKC)

Submitted: October 3, 2001 Decided: October 18, 2001

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Gerald Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Gerald Fleming seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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 Fleming v. Conroy, No.

CA-00-2863-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 19, 2001). 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
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 2464 Dir ID: 2014 - NM - 195 - AD
FLN (Rev. 4/2004) Deficiency Order Page 1 of 1

3:98cr47LAC - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. JOHNNIE FRANK EMANUEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs

JOHNNIE FRANK EMANUEL

Case No.3:98cr47LAC

ORDER

Your document, MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, was referred to

the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

The document does not have an original signature.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the document shall be returned so that the

party may sign it.

DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2006.

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:98-cr-00047-LC-EMT Document 185 Filed 09/14/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION




In connection with the Quarterly Report of PDC 2005-A Limited Partnership (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Registrant.





/s/ Richard W. McCullough

August 13, 2010Richard W. McCulloughChief Executive OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner/s/ Gysle R. Shellum

August 13, 2010Gysle R. ShellumChief Financial OfficerPetroleum Development CorporationManaging General Partner





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided by the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 51010

MARK ANTHONY ESTRADA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

ANITA LIMON, Caseworker, The Department of Family and Protective Services; ALICIA VELA, Therapist, Counseling Session, The Department of Family and Protective Services; AISLING MORALES, Family Based Safety Services Worker, The Department of Family and Prot ective Services; FNU MALDONADO, Officer, San Antonio Police Department; DONNA KAY MCKINNEY, District Clerk, Bexar County; LNU JOAQUINE, Bexar County Sheriff

,

Defendant s

- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Distric t of Texas USDC No. 5:18

- CV

- 1106

Before JONES, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Mark Anthony Estrada, Texas prisoner # 906481, moves for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal. By moving this court for leave
to proceed IFP, Estrada is challenging the district court’s determination that

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 18, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-51010 Document: 00515000757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2019No. 18

- 51010

2 his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th
Cir. 1997).

“This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion,

if necess ary.” Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). An untimely
notice of appeal in a civil case deprives this court of jurisdiction. Bowles v.

Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 21 3

- 1 4 (2007). Because Estrada did not file a timely
notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 lawsuit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, this court lacks
jurisdiction over the instant appeal. See id .; F ED

. R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1)(A).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The IFP

motion is DENIED as moot. All remaining outstanding motions are DENIED. Case: 18-51010 Document: 00515000757 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2019
#### State Division of Human Rights, Respondent, v Terminal Transport Co., Inc., a Division of American Freight Systems, Inc., Petitioner.

Petition dismissed, without costs, order and determination unanimously confirmed and order of enforcement granted. (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, §298.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Schnepp, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 10, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 10, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0241. ADRIAN BURDETTE v. CHANDLER TELECOM, LLC et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2014DV237
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29508]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7226]

Determination Under The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 
(Pub. L. 111-212) Concerning Assistance for the Government of Haiti

    Pursuant to section 1007(b)(1) of the Supplemental Appropriations 
Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-212), and Department of State Delegation of 
Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that the Government of Haiti 
is cooperating with United States reconstruction and reform efforts; 
and is demonstrating a commitment to accountability by removing corrupt 
officials, implementing fiscal transparency and other necessary reforms 
of government institutions, and facilitating active public engagement 
in governance and oversight of public resources.
    This Determination shall be transmitted to the Congress and 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: November 5, 2010.
Jacob J. Lew,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2010-29508 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
```
#### § 319.73-1 Definitions.

*Administrator.* The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, or any employee of the United States Department of Agriculture delegated to act in his or her stead.

*Inspector.* Any individual authorized by the Administrator to enforce this subpart.

*Sample.* Unroasted coffee not for commercial resale. Intended use includes, but is not limited to, evaluation, testing, or market analysis.

*United States.* The States, District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

*Unroasted coffee.* The raw or unroasted seeds or beans of coffee intended for processing.

[63 FR 65650, Nov. 30, 1998, as amended at 83 FR 11866, Mar. 19, 2018]
§ 3430.506 Matching requirements. ( a ) *General requirement.* If a grant under this subpart provides a particular benefit to a specific agricultural commodity, the recipient of the grant is required to provide funds or in-kind support to match the amount of funds provided by NIFA.
( b ) *Indirect costs.* Use of indirect costs as in-kind matching contributions is subject to § 3430.52(b).
( c ) *Waiver authority.* NIFA may waive the matching requirement specified in paragraph (a) of this section with respect to a grant if NIFA determines that: ( 1 ) The results of the project, while of particular benefit to a specific agricultural commodity, are likely to be applicable to agricultural commodities generally; or
( 2 ) When all three of the following conditions are present: ( i ) The project involves a minor commodity,
( ii ) The project deals with scientifically important research, and
( iii ) The grant recipient is unable to satisfy the matching funds requirement.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-11547

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

DUSTIN RAY LEONARD,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:18-CR-55-1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dustin Ray Leonard

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). Leonard has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-11547 Document: 00515022594 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2019
No. 18-11547

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-11547 Document: 00515022594 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2019
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 Commerce

# AGENCY:

Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of an open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The National Advisory Committee on Innovation and Entrepreneurship will hold a meeting on Wednesday, December 8, 2010. The meeting will be conducted from 9 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. and will be opened to the public. The Council was chartered on November 10, 2009, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to innovation and entrepreneurship in the United States.

# DATES:

December 8, 2010.

*Time:*                         9 a.m.-12:45 p.m. (EST).                    

# ADDRESSES:

This program will be conducted and available to the public via a listen in conference number, 888-942-9574, and passcode, 6315042. Please specify any requests for reasonable accommodation of auxiliary aids at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda topics to be discussed include: Sub-committee summaries and briefings by outside experts. No time will be available for oral comments from members of the public listening to the meeting. Any member of the public may submit pertinent written comments concerning the Council's affairs at any time before and after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to Paul Corson at the contact information indicated below.

Copies of Board meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Paul J. Corson, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Room 7019, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230, telephone: 202-482-2042, e-mail:                         *pcorson@eda.doc.gov.*                         Please reference, “NACIE December 8, 2010” in the subject line of your e-mail.                    

Dated: November 19, 2010.

Paul J. Corson,

Acting Director, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, U.S. Department of Commerce.

[FR Doc. 2010-29639 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-03-P
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of BlackRock Capital Investment Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30,
2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Michael J. Zugay, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donna M. Milia, as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 consolidated financial condition and consolidated results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael J. Zugay
|Name:                |  | Michael J. Zugay                     
|Title:               |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|Date:                |  | August 2, 2017                       
|                    
|/s/ Donna M. Milia  
|Name:                |  | Donna M. Milia                       
|Title:               |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|Date:                |  | August 2, 2017