alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6520

DEVON M. BYRD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

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

- Appellee

.

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

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 00434

- JAG

- RCY )

Submitted : June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Devon M. Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Devon M. Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s o rder dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from
latest of four commencement dates enume rated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing o f the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition
st ates a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made the requisite showing. Accord ingly, we deny Byrd’s motion for 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 decis ional process.
DISMISSED
REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE

First American Real Estate Solutions of Texas,  L.P. (an indirect  subsidiary of
the First American  Corporation,  and the "Asserting  Party") is responsible for
assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006, and for the period from January 1,
2006  through  December 31, 2006 (the  "Reporting  Period")  with the  servicing
criteria  set  forth  in  Title  17,  Sections  229.1122(d)(1)(iv),   (d)(2)(v),
(d)(2)(vi), (d)(2)(vii), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) of the Code of
Federal   Regulations  (the  "CFR")  applicable  to  the  Asserting  Party  (the
"Applicable  Servicing  Criteria").  The  transactions  covered  by this  report
include all loans for residential mortgage loan outsourcing  customers for which
the  Asserting  Party  served  as the  residential  tax  service  provider  (the
"Platform").

The Asserting  Party has assessed its compliance  with the Applicable  Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting  Period and has concluded  that,  except as set forth
hereinbelow,  the Asserting Party has complied,  in all material respects,  with
the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2006, and for the Reporting
Period with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

The  Asserting  Party  assessed its  compliance  with the  Applicable  Servicing
Criteria for the  Reporting  Period and has  identified  a material  instance of
noncompliance   with   the   servicing    criterion   set   forth   in   Section
229.1122(d)(2)(vii)(B)  of the CFR with respect to the  Platform.  Specifically,
the  Asserting  Party  did not  prepare  reconciliations  for  all  asset-backed
securities  related  bank  accounts  within  30  calendar  days  after  the bank
statement  cut-off  date or such  number of days  specified  in the  transaction
agreements.

PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP, an independent  registered  public accounting firm,
has  issued an  attestation  report on the  assessment  of  compliance  with the
Applicable  Servicing  Criteria as of December 31, 2006,  and for the  Reporting
Period as set forth in this assertion.

FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS OF TEXAS, L.P.
By:  First American Real Estate Solutions LLC
        General Partner

/s/ Lucy A. Przybyla
Lucy A. Przybyla
Senior Vice President
February 28, 2007
§ 3430.42 Special award conditions. ( a ) *General.* NIFA may, with respect to any award, impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of any award when, in the judgment of NIFA, such conditions are necessary to ensure or protect advancement of the approved project, the interests of the public, or the conservation of grant or cooperative agreement funds. NIFA may impose additional requirements if an applicant or recipient has a history of poor performance; is not financially stable; has a management system that does not meet prescribed standards; has not complied with the terms and conditions of a previous award; or is not otherwise responsible.
( b ) *Notification of additional requirements.* When NIFA imposes additional requirements, NIFA will notify the recipient in writing as to the following: The nature of the additional requirements; the reason why the additional requirements are being imposed; the nature of the corrective actions needed; the time allowed for completing the corrective actions; and the method for requesting reconsideration of the additional requirements imposed.
( c ) *Form NIFA-2009, Award Face Sheet.* These special award conditions, as applicable, will be added as a special provision to the award terms and conditions and identified on the Form NIFA-2009, Award Face Sheet, for the award.
( d ) *Removal of additional requirements.* NIFA will promptly remove any additional requirements once the conditions that prompted them have been corrected.
#  Federal Acquisition Regulation

- Part 42 - Contract Administration and Audit Services 
- Part 43 - Contract Modifications 
- Part 44 - Subcontracting Policies and Procedures 
- Part 45 - Government Property 
- Part 46 - Quality Assurance 
- Part 47 - Transportation 
- Part 48 - Value Engineering 
- Part 49 - Termination of Contracts 
- Part 50 - Extraordinary Contractual Actions and the safety act 
- Part 51 - Use of Government Sources by Contractors 

**Parent topic:**Subchapter G - Contract Management
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7201

EDWARD GERMAINE SAUNDERS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

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

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:19

- cv - 00166

- MFU

- JCH )

Submitted : April 25, 2023 Decided: April 28, 2023

Before GREGORY , Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Edward Germaine Saunders , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7201 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Edward Germa ine Saunders appeal s the district court’s order denying as untimely his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (6) motion s for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b ) motion for abuse of discretion. See Aikens v. Ingram , 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) “must be made within a reasonable time” after entry of the underlying judgment or order. Upon review, we discern no abuse o f
discretion in the district court’s denial of Saunders’ motion s
. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. * 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

* A certificate of appealability is un necessary when we affirm the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion “only on timeliness grounds.” United States v. Williams , 56 F.4th 366, 370 n.3 (4th Cir. 2023). USCA4 Appeal: 22-7201 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER 

### W ITHDRAWING 

### M EDIATION 

### O RDER

Cause number: 01

- 14

- 00792

- CV

Style: Eugenia Woodard v. Fortress Insurance Company, Dr. Ronnie Elmore,

D.D.S.

Date motion filed: January 23, 2015

Type of Motion: Objection to Mediation

Party filing motion: Appellee



### It is ordered that Appellee = s objection to mediation is granted. We withdraw our

Mediation Order dated January 12, 2015.

Judge's signature: / s/ Laura Carter Higley

x Acting in dividually

Date: January 27 , 2015

* Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for

motion to extend time to file a brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a).

Note : Single justice may gr ant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice

should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion

for rehearing. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10 .4(a).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nehemiah Nash, Appellant.

Submitted October 9, 2007;

decided October 11, 2007

Motion for reargument denied *[see*9 NY3d 894 (2007)].
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

EMILIANO RAMON AVILA

GUILARTE,

A# 208–457–685,

Petitioner,

v. 4:20cv401–WS/MAF

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Respondents.

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S § 2241 PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF

No. 13) docketed December 3, 2020. The magistrate judge recommends that

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. No objections to the report

and recommendation have been filed.

The court having reviewed the matter, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (ECF No. 13) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:20-cv-00401-WS-MAF Document 15 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "Petitioner’s § 2241 petition for

writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.” 

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of January , 2021.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:20-cv-00401-WS-MAF Document 15 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 54.1011 Withdrawal of application or request for service.

An application or a request for service under the regulations may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time before the application is approved or prior to performance of service. The applicant shall be responsible for payment, in accordance with § 54.1028 and § 54.1029, of any expenses already incurred by the Agricultural Marketing Service in connection therewith.
#### § 51.23 Report of inspection results prior to issuance of formal report.

Upon request of an applicant, all or any part of the contents of a certificate covering an inspection requested by him may be telegraphed or telephoned to him, or to any person designated by him, at his expense. If the application for such information is received after the certificate has been issued, it will be considered as an application for an extra copy of the certificate, and the fees prescribed in § 51.41 shall apply.
52.217-6 Option for Increased Quantity.

As prescribed in 17.208(d), insert a clause substantially the same as the following:

Option for Increased Quantity (Mar 1989)

The Government may increase the quantity of supplies called for in the Schedule at the unit price

specified. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within

______________________ [insert in the clause the period of time in which the Contracting Officer has to

exercise the option]. Delivery of the added items shall continue at the same rate as the like items

called for under the contract, unless the parties otherwise agree.

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.217 [Reserved]
#### § 51.31 Appeal inspection certificate.

After an appeal inspection has been completed, an appeal inspection certificate shall be issued showing the results of such appeal inspection; and such certificate shall supersede the inspection certificate previously issued for the product involved. Each appeal inspection certificate shall clearly identify the number and date of the inspection certificate which it supersedes. The superseded certificate shall become null and void upon the issuance of the appeal inspection certificate and shall no longer represent the quality described therein. The inspector or inspectors issuing an appeal inspection certificate shall sign the certificate and forward notice of such issuance to such persons as considered necessary to prevent misuse of the superseded certificate if the original and all copies of such superseded certificate have not previously been delivered to the inspector or inspectors issuing the appeal inspection certificate. The provisions in the regulations in this part concerning forms of certificates and issuance of certificates, shall apply to appeal inspection certificates, except that copies of such appeal inspection certificates shall be furnished all interested parties who receive copies of the superseded certificate.
4. L. Transcript of June 26, 2008, Public Hearing.
#### Hugh Wyatt et al., Appellants, v County of Putnam et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County, entered December 6, 1978, which (a) granted that branch of a motion by the defendants as sought summary *851judgment dismissing the complaint against the County of Putnam, and (b) denied, with leave to renew, that branch of the motion as sought the same relief on behalf of the Putnam County Highway Department; and (2) an order of the same court, entered April 24, 1979, which (a) denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to reargue the prior order and (b) granted the Putnam County Highway Department’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the remainder of the complaint. Appeal from so much of the order entered April 24, 1979, as denied reargument dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(Friello v Black & Decker Mfg. Co.,*16 AD2d 792; *Matter of Grinnell Corp. [American Dist. Tel. Co.], 32*AD2d 901). Order otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Appeal from so much of the order entered December 6, 1978 as denied, with leave to renew, that branch of defendants’ motion which sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to the Putnam County Highway Department, dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements. That part of the order was superseded by the order entered April 24, 1979. Order entered December 6, 1978 otherwise reversed insofar as it is in favor of defendant County of Putnam, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith. Plaintiffs’ motion papers submitted in opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment were sufficient to create issues of fact as to (1) whether plaintiffs served a copy of their summons and complaint on one Monique O’Drisko on or about October 27, 1975, within the period prescribed by section 50-i of the General Municipal Law, and (2) whether Monique O’Drisko was authorized by the County Clerk of Putnam County or by any other appropriate person or body to accept such service upon the county’s behalf (see CPLR 311, subd 4; *Avery v O’Dwyer,*201 Misc 989, mod on other grounds 280 App Div 766, affd 305 NY 658; *Fillyow v County of Westchester,*33 Misc 2d 501). Special Term’s grant of summary judgment to the county without a hearing was therefore improvident. Accordingly, we remit this matter to Special Term with directions to reconsider that branch of the motion which sought to dismiss the complaint as to the county, after holding a hearing on the above-enumerated issues. Special Term did correctly grant summary judgment to the Putnam County Highway Department. We find no support, and plaintffs have cited none, for the proposition that the highway department may be sued at law separate and independent from its status as an agency of Putnam County (cf. *Tom Sawyer Motor Ins v Chemung County Sewer Dist. No. 1,*33 AD2d 720). Gibbons, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors

NewStar Financial, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-139330, No. 333-139331, No. 333-159283, and No. 333-166772) and Form S-3 (No.333-150581**)**of NewStar Financial, Inc. of our reports dated March 4, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of NewStar Financial, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as ofDecember 31, 2010, which reports appear in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of NewStar Financial, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts

March 4, 2011
25.001 General.

(a) 41 U.S.C. chapter 83, Buy American-

(1) Restricts the purchase of supplies, that are not domestic end products, for use within the United

States. A foreign end product may be purchased if the contracting officer determines that the price

of the lowest domestic offer is unreasonable or if another exception applies (see subpart 25.1); and

(2) Requires, with some exceptions, the use of only domestic construction materials in contracts for

construction in the United States (see subpart 25.2).

(b) The restrictions in the Buy American statute are not applicable in acquisitions subject to certain

trade agreements (see subpart 25.4). In these acquisitions, end products and construction materials

from certain countries receive nondiscriminatory treatment in evaluation with domestic offers.

Generally, the dollar value of the acquisition determines which of the trade agreements applies.

Exceptions to the applicability of the trade agreements are described in subpart 25.4.

(c) The test to determine the country of origin for an end product under the Buy American statute

(see the various country "end product" definitions in 25.003) is different from the test to determine

the country of origin for an end product under the trade agreements, or the criteria for the

representation on end products manufactured outside the United States (see 52.225-18).

(1) The Buy American statute uses a two-part test to define a "domestic end product" or "domestic

construction material" (manufactured in the United States and a domestic content test). The

domestic content test has been waived for acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS)

items, except a product that consists wholly or predominantly of iron or steel or a combination of

both (excluding COTS fasteners) (see 25.101(a) and 25.201(b)).

(2) Under the trade agreements, the test to determine country of origin is "substantial

transformation" (i.e., transforming an article into a new and different article of commerce, with a

name, character, or use distinct from the original article).

(3) For the representation at 52.225-18, the only criterion is whether the place of manufacture of an

end product is in the United States or outside the United States, without regard to the origin of the

components.

(4) When using funds appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(Pub. L. 111-5), the definition of "domestic manufactured construction material" requires

manufacture in the United States but does not include a requirement with regard to the origin of the

components. If the construction material consists wholly or predominantly of iron or steel, the iron

or steel must be produced in the United States.

Parent topic: Part 25 - Foreign Acquisition
52.225 [Reserved]

52.225-1 Buy American-Supplies

52.225-2 Buy American Certificate.

52.225-3 Buy American-Free Trade Agreements-Israeli Trade Act.

52.225-4 Buy American-Free Trade Agreements-Israeli Trade Act Certificate.

52.225-5 Trade Agreements.

52.225-6 Trade Agreements Certificate.

52.225-7 Waiver of Buy American Statute for Civil Aircraft and Related Articles.

52.225-8 Duty-Free Entry.

52.225-9 Buy American-Construction Materials.

52.225-10 Notice of Buy American Requirement-Construction Materials.

52.225-11 Buy American-Construction Materials under Trade Agreements.

52.225-12 Notice of Buy American Requirement-Construction Materials Under Trade

Agreements.

52.225-13 Restrictions on Certain Foreign Purchases.

52.225-14 Inconsistency between English Version and Translation of Contract.

52.225-15 [Reserved]

52.225-16 [Reserved]

52.225-17 Evaluation of Foreign Currency Offers.

52.225-18 Place of Manufacture.

52.225-19 Contractor Personnel in a Designated Operational Area or Supporting a

Diplomatic or Consular Mission Outside the United States.

52.225-20 Prohibition on Conducting Restricted Business Operations in SudanCertification.

52.225-21 Required Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured Goods-Buy

American Statute-Construction Materials.

52.225-22 Notice of Required Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured GoodsBuy American Statute-Construction Materials.

52.225-23 Required Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured Goods-Buy

American Statute-Construction Materials under Trade Agreements.

52.225-24 Notice of Required Use of American Iron, Steel, and Manufactured GoodsBuy American Statute-Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements.

52.225-25 Prohibition on Contracting With Entities Engaging in Certain Activities or

Transactions Relating to Iran—Representation and Certifications.

52.225-26 Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United

States.

Parent topic: Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
#### § 51.690 Application of tolerances.

Individual samples are subject to the following limitations, unless otherwise specified in § 51.689. Individual samples shall have not more than one and one-half times a specified tolerance of 10 percent or more, and not more than double a specified tolerance of less than 10 percent: *Provided,* That at least one decayed may be permitted in any sample: *And provided further,* That the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade.

[85 FR 68427, Oct. 29, 2020]