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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7696

JOSEPH DICKERSON, a/k/a Joseph L. Dickerson, a/k/a Joseph 

Lee Dickerson,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN WAYNE MCCABE, Lieber Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(8:11-cv-01412-RBH)

Submitted: March 29, 2013 Decided: April 10, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Dickerson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

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

(2006). 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) (2006). 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Dickerson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the pending motion 

to hold this case in abeyance, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### KEEPERS v. WEST VIRGINIA BRIDGE CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

Action by William H. Keepers against the West Virginia Bridge Company.

No opinion. Motion for stay denied, with $10 costs. Settle order on notice.
11.106 Purchase descriptions for service contracts.       In drafting purchase descriptions for service contracts, agency requiring activities shall ensure that inherently governmental functions (see subpart  7.5) are not assigned to a contractor. These purchase descriptions shall-                                       (a)                    						            Reserve final determination for Government officials;                                          (b)                    						            Require proper identification of contractor personnel who attend meetings, answer Government telephones, or work in situations where their actions could be construed as acts of Government officials unless, in the judgment of the agency, no harm can come from failing to identify themselves; and                                          (c)                    						            Require suitable marking of all documents or reports produced by contractors.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 11.1 - Selecting and Developing Requirements Documents
PUBLIC LAW 108–353—OCT. 21, 2004 118 STAT. 1399

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2415:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

June 9, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 6, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 108–353

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4141 Postmark

Drive, Anchorage, Alaska, as the ‘‘Robert J. Opinsky Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ROBERT J. OPINSKY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 4141 Postmark Drive, in Anchorage, Alaska,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert J. Opinsky Post

Office Building’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Robert J. Opinsky Post Office Building’’.

Approved October 21, 2004.

Oct. 21, 2004

[S. 2415]
Exhibit 32(i)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350

    In connection with the Form 10-K of National Bankshares, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2004, I, James G. Rakes, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of National Bankshares, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

(1)      such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies
         with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securties Act of
         1934; and

(2)      the information contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended December
         31, 2004, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
         condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.


 /s/ JAMES G. RAKES
-----------------------------
James G. Rakes
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 4284.1104 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, grant an exception to any requirement or provision of this subpart provided that such an exception is in the best financial interests of the Federal government. Exercise of this authority cannot conflict with applicable law.
#### § 51.2082 Loose extraneous and foreign material.

*Loose extraneous and foreign material* means loose hulls, empty broken shells, pieces of shells, external insect infestation and any substance other than almonds in the shell or almond kernels.
25.301 Contractor personnel in a designated

operational area or supporting a diplomatic

or consular mission outside the United

States.

25.301-1 Scope.

25.301-2 Government support.

25.301-3 Weapons.

25.301-4 Contract clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 25.3 - Contracts Performed Outside the United States
Exhibit 23(b)

KPMG LLP

      99 High Street          Telephone 617 988 1000   Telefax 617 988 0800
      Boston, MA 02110-2371


                       Consent of Independent Auditors
                       -------------------------------


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
 of Westerbeke Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(File No. 33-24435 and 333-25687) on Form S-8 of Westerbeke Corporation of
our report dated December 7, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of Westerbeke Corporation and subsidiary as of October 27, 2001 and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year
period ended October 27, 2001, and related schedule, which report appears in
the October 26, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Westerbeke Corporation.


                                       By /s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
January 24, 2003
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 7277

DAVID G. CLARK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. ( 2:20

- cv - 00294

- AWA

- RJK )

Submitted : January 10, 2023 Decided: February 1, 2023

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

David G. Clark , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7277 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: David G. Clark seeks to appeal the distric t court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies . The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dis missal of the petition and advised Clark that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendat ion is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Clark has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because th e facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7277 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE FOR ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000796486
<NAME> ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         186,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  194,399<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      16,068,202<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,267,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      9,291,732
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,239
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,721,187)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,267,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,287,968
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,148,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             359,585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (244,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (14,493)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (229,872)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (10,658)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (240,530)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.88)
<FN>
<F1>RECEIVABLES NET OF ALLOWANCE
<F2>PP&E IS NET OF DEPRECIATION
</FN>


</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2638 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methylhydroquinone. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Methylhydroquinone. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2-METHYLHYDROQUINONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.29.09 2-Methylhydroquinone (CAS 

No. 95–71–6) (provided for 

in subheading 2907.29.90) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 2638 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
47.207 Solicitation provisions, contract

clauses, and special requirements.

The contracting officer shall include provisions, clauses, and special requirements in solicitations

and contracts for transportation or for transportation-related services as prescribed in 47.207-1

through 47.207-9.

47.207-1 Qualifications of offerors.

47.207-2 Duration of contract and time of performance.

47.207-3 Description of shipment, origin, and destination.

47.207-4 Determination of Weights.

47.207-5 Contractor responsibilities.

47.207-6 Rates and charges.

47.207-7 Liability and insurance.

47.207-8 Government responsibilities.

47.207-9 Annotation and distribution of shipping and billing documents.

47.207-10 Discrepancies incident to shipments.

47.207-11 Volume movements within the contiguous United States.

Parent topic: Subpart 47.2 - Contracts for Transportation or for Transportation-Related Services
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr41/MCR

CEDRIC DESHAWN MCPHERSON

 /

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there has been no timely objections, and subject to this Court’s

consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3), the plea of

guilty of the Defendant, CEDRIC DESHAWN MCPHERSON, to Count One of the

Indictment is hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for

sentencing as directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of January 2021.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00041-MCR Document 23 Filed 01/27/21 Page 1 of 1
14.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes-

(a) The basic requirements of contracting for supplies and services (including construction) by

sealed bidding;

(b) The information to be included in the solicitation (invitation for bids);

(c) Procedures concerning the submission of bids;

(d) Requirements for opening and evaluating bids and awarding contracts; and

(e) Procedures for two-step sealed bidding.

Parent topic: Part 14 - Sealed Bidding
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
ANTHONY

- ERIC EMERSON , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0582 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010

- 138001

- 001 CR2010

- 139292

- 001 The Honorable Karen L. O’Connor , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED AND R ELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Anthony

- Eric Emerson , Tucson Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe, Judge Kenton D. Jones, and Judge James B. Morse Jr. delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 2-1-2018STATE v. EMERSON Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Anthony

- Eric Emerson see ks review of the superior court’ s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Proc edure 32.1. This is petitioner’ s second petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court wi ll not disturb a superior court’ s ruling on a petition for p ost

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’ s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matt er, the superior court’ s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitione r has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
§ 3300.43 Application for approval. An application by an officer of the organization shall be submitted to the Administrator for each facility for which approval is sought. Copies of the Form, Application for Approval as a U.S. ATP Testing Laboratory, may be obtained by a request to the ATP manager. The following information must be supplied in the application: ( a ) A statement that the organization is incorporated or chartered under the laws of, and that it has its principal office in, the United States, including the address and telephone number of the principal office.
( b ) The address and telephone number of the testing laboratory, and name and title of person in charge of the laboratory.
( c ) A summary of the experience at the facility which would indicate a capability to conduct tests of mechanical refrigerating appliances according to subpart D of this rule.
( d ) A general description of the laboratory, including drawings on letter size (81 ⁄ 2 × 11 inches) paper to show the floor plan and cross-section of the test chamber, basic dimensions, location of heat exchangers and instruments, and any other pertinent information.
( e ) A statement that the ATP manager or other representative of the Administrator may, before a decision is made concerning the application, observe a test at the laboratory of a mechanical refrigerating appliance for a Class “C” mechanically refrigerated container or trailer, with Class “C” as defined in ATP, Annex 1, paragraph 3.
( f ) A statement that the laboratory will maintain records of basic data developed in each test conducted under this rule, such records to be available for review by the ATP manager or other representative of the Administrator, upon request. The record for each test shall be maintained for a period of three years.
( g ) A statement that the organization will advise the ATP manager as soon as practicable of its intent to conduct a test under this rule and that it will, as soon as possible, advise when a firm test has been set so that the ATP manager or other representative of the Administrator may observe the test.
( h ) A statement that the organization will send to the ATP manager a copy of each test report for an appliance tested at the laboratory according to this rule, within 30 days after completion of the test.
( i ) A statement that, should any significant change occur in the facility with respect to structure or test equipment as a result of redesign or other cause during the period of approval, the organization will so advise the ATP manager within 30 days after such change.
( j ) Any other pertinent information.
#### Edward Zirkel et al., Appellants, v Frontier Communications of America, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 324]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered April 25, 2005 in Chenango County, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff Edward Zirkel (hereinafter plaintiff) was injured when, in the course of his employment of removing old. utility poles, one of the poles toppled over from its vertical position striking him in the head and shoulder. He and his wife, *1189derivatively, sued the owners of the pole claiming negligence and violations of various Labor Law provisions. At issue on this appeal is an order of Supreme Court which granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiffs argue that their Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims were improperly dismissed.

With respect to the Labor Law § 240 claim, plaintiffs allege that because the pole was caused to fall by the effect of gravity, summary judgment should have been granted in their favor. We disagree. While plaintiff’s job assignment that day indeed envisioned that the subject pole would ultimately be removed from the ground by a hydraulic powered winch attached to a derrick truck, it fell before the winch had even been attached to the pole. In this regard, it is axiomatic that Labor Law § 240 is “not intended to cover all dangers tangentially related to gravity” *(Bradley v San-Gra Corp., Santaro Cos.,*301 AD2d 709, 711 [2003]). Therefore, in order for a worker struck by a falling object to recover under Labor Law § 240, he or she must be able to show that it “fell[ ] while being hoisted or secured” *(Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc.,*96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]; *see Atkinson v State of New York,*20 AD3d 739, 740 [2005]). Here, the utility pole which struck plaintiff was not being hoisted or secured at the time it fell; therefore, Supreme Court appropriately granted defendants summary judgment on this claim.

Plaintiffs’ cause of action predicated on Labor Law § 241 (6) was also properly dismissed. Plaintiffs contend that the installation of a new pole in the vicinity of the old pole necessarily required some excavation thus invoking 12 NYCRR 23-4.1, a regulation promulgated pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6). While it is true that this regulation focuses on protecting against structural collapses associated with the loss of stability due to excavation *(see Sainato v City of Albany,*285 AD2d 708, 710-711 [2001]), there is no proof in this record as to what caused the old pole to topple over. Thus, any claim that the minimal excavation required for the installation of the new pole caused instability in the ground around the old one is based on pure speculation.

Crew III, J.P., Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.