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

**No. 14**  **- 7792** 

JESSE MAVERICK MINTON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v.
FRANK PERRY , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. L. Patrick Auld , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00497

- LPA )

Submitted : February 25 , 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jesse Maverick Minton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jesse Maverick Minton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.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) (2012). A certificate of appealabil ity will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists wou ld 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
grou nds, 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 Minton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Minton’s motions for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and lega l3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Selectedpapers in school finance.**** 
SuDocNumber:
SuDocNumber: ED 1.310/2:, HE 19.102:F 49/, ED 1.302:P 19/, ED 1.310/5:
ItemNumber:0461-D-05,0466-A-05, 0466-A-05 (online)
CGPsystem Number:000568053
 
1974
1978
1994
1995
1996
1997-1999
2001
 **
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3090 

To suspend temporarily the duty on M. Torres laser scribe machines. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on M. Torres laser scribe 

machines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. M. TORRES LASER SCRIBE MACHINES. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.84.56 M. Torres laser scribe machines (provided for in subheading 8456.10.80) ....... 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 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 3090 IS 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### § 984.10 Shelled walnuts.

*Shelled walnuts* means walnut kernels after the shells are removed.
# Subpart 5212.1 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS - GENERAL

**Parent topic:**Part 5212 - ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

## 5212.102 Applicability.

(a)(i)(C) If market research and          analysis yields that expert and consultant services are commercial items (as defined in FAR          2.101), the concurrence of DASN(P) shall be obtained on the required determination.          Determinations shall be submitted by email with a copy of the approved AS, STRAP, or          MOPAS-S using usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with the subject          “[Activity Name] NMCARS 5212.102 – D&F for Expert and Consultant Commercial          Services.”

(f)(1) HCAs are delegated the authority to make the determinations described in FAR 12.102 (f)(1).
5649.607 Delinquency Notices.

(Revised November 2007)

Any actions relating to delinquent contractors, including Termination for Default, Cure Notice, and

Show Cause Notice, must be coordinated with legal counsel. A copy of all Cure and Show Cause

Notices to small business firms must be furnished to the OSBP concurrent to the notice being sent to

the contractor. The contractor's response or lack of response within the allotted time period, as well

as any relevant documentation related to the contractor's response, must be furnished to legal

counsel for review on all contracts.

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5649

February 2007

Parent topic: Subpart 5649.6 - CONTRACT TERMINATION FORMS AND FORMATS
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2006 Page 5 of 5
#### In the Matter of Greater Continental Corporation, Appellant, v. Marvin Schechter, Respondent.

In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 (suhd. [b]) to stay arbitration and vacate respondent’s demand for arbitration, petitioner appeals from'an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 5, 1969, which denied the application. Order reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for a determination on the merits of petitioner’s claim that a valid employment agreement did not exist between the parties. The questions of fact have not been considered. The Special Term denied the motion solely on the basis of *res judicata,*holding that it was bound by a determination in an action between the parties in the United States District Court, .Southern District of New York, which denied a motion by this same petitioner for an identical stay of arbitration *(Greater Continental Corp.*v. *Schechter,*304 F. Supp. 325). In our opinion, the District Court determined only that that court did not have exclusive jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief relative to the employment agreement between the parties since it did not come under any of the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relied on by petitioner for the relief sought. The District Court did not and could not reach the additional claim, made for the first time by petitioner at the Special Term, that CPLR 7503 (subd. [b]) required the validity of the agreement to be judicially tested before arbitration could proceed. Accordingly, it was error for the Special Term to deny®the application for a stay on the ground of *res judicata (Schuylkill Fuel Oil Corp.*
      *826v. *Neiberg Realty Corp.,*250 N. Y. 304; *Rudd*v. *Cornell,*171 N. Y. 114). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Dwight B. Dewey et al., Appellants, *v.*J. Barton Finn, Respondent.

(Submitted June 17,1884;

decided June 24, 1884.)

O'Brien, *Emerson db Ward*for appellants.

*Thomas E. Kearns*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion!

All concur.

Order affirmed.
# Subpart 226.1 - INDIAN INCENTIVE PROGRAM

**Parent topic:**Part 226 - OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS

## 226.103 Procedures.

Follow the procedures at PGI                 226.103              when submitting a request for funding of an Indian incentive.

## 226.104 Contract clause.

Use the clause at 252.226-7001 , Utilization of Indian Organizations, Indian-Owned Economic Enterprises, and Native Hawaiian Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that are for supplies or services exceeding $500,000 in value.
#### EDWARDS, Respondent, v. MORGAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

Action by James Edwards against Reginald H. Morgan, Jr.

B. P. Kerfoot, of New York City, for appellant.

E. A. Bates, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7666

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHERMAN DARRELL PAYNE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CR-94-317-WMN, CA-97-1376-WMN)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 26, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sherman Darrell Payne, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

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. United States v. Payne, No. CR-94-317-WMN; CA-97-1376-WMN

(D. Md. Oct. 24, 1997). 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
52.247-66 Returnable Cylinders.       As prescribed in 47.305-17, insert the following clause:          Returnable Cylinders (May 1994)                                       (a) 						            Cylinder, referred to in this clause, is a pressure vessel designed for pressures higher than 40 psia and having a circular cross section excluding a portable tank, multi-tank car tank, cargo tank or tank car.                                          (b) 						            Returnable cylinders shall remain the Contractor’s property but shall be loaned without charge to the Government for a period of ____ days [*Contracting Officer shall insert number of days*] (hereafter referred to as loan period) following the day of delivery to the f.o.b. point specified in the contract. Any cylinder not returned within the loan period shall be charged a daily rental beginning with the firstday after the loan period expires, to and including the day the cylinders are delivered to the Contractor (if the original delivery was f.o.b. origin) or are delivered or made available for delivery to the Contractor’s designated carrier (if the original delivery was f.o.b. destination). The Government shall pay the Contractor a rental of $____________ [*Contracting Officer shall insert dollar amount for rental, after evaluation of offers*] per cylinder, perday, computed separately for cylinders by type, size, and capacity and for each point of delivery named in the contract. No rental shall accrue to the Contractor in excess of replacement value per cylinder specified in paragraph (c) of this clause.                                          (c) 						            For each cylinder lost or damaged beyond repair while in the Government’s possession, the Government shall pay to the Contractor the replacement value, less the allocable rental paid for that cylinder as follows:                ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ [*Contracting Officer shall insert the cylinder types, sizes, capacities, and associated replacement values*.]                These cylinders shall become Government property.                                          (d) 						            If any lost cylinder is located within ___________ [*Contracting Officer shall insert number of days*] calendar days after payment by the Government, it may be returned to the Contractor by the Government, and the Contractor shall pay to the Government an amount equal to the replacement value, less rental computed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this clause, beginning at the expiration of the loan period specified in paragraph (b) of this clause, and continuing to the date on which the cylinder was delivered to the Contractor.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.247 [Reserved]
402.000 Scope of part.

As used throughout this chapter, the following words and terms are used as defined in this subpart

unless the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning, or a different

definition is prescribed for a particular part or portion of a part.

Parent topic: PART 402 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

FEB 1 ~ Z015 

Mr. Yves Regis 

Vice President, Product Integrity (EIA) 

Airbus SAS 

1 Rond Point Maurice Bellante 

31707 Blagnac Cedex 

France 

Dear Mr. Regis: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your petition, dated January 6, 2015 (letter no. D21 M 15000084), on 

behalf of Airbus, requesting an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) 25.841 (a)(2) and (3). This exemption, if granted, would permit relief from the 

requirements regarding decompression events due to uncontained engine-rotor failure for 

Airbus Model A319-171n, A319-151n, A320-271n, A320-251n, A321-271n, and 

A321-251n, collectively referred to as the Model SAneo series airplanes. 

Your petition has been added to public docket no. F AA-2015-0232 and is being processed. 

We will contact you if we need additional information. 

We will advise you of our final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you have 

questions in the meantime, you may call Steve Happenny at (425) 227-2147, e-mail 

stephen.happenny@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Mark Forseth 

Standardization Branch 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Federal Aviation Administration
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gilberto Ramos and Ramon Perez, Appellants.

Separate appeals by defendants from two judgments (each as to a different one of the defendants) of the -Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered April 25, 1969, convicting them of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict. Judgments affirmed. No opinion. Christ, P. J., Rabin and Munder, JJ., concur; Hopkins and Martuseello, JJ., concur in affirmance of judgment against Perez, but otherwise dissent and vote to reverse the judgment against defendant Ramos and to dismiss the indictment insofar as it is against him, with the following memorandum: The People proved that defendant Perez, carrying a television set that had been taken from a locked bedroom, descended the building’s stoop and that defendant Ramos, closing the vestibule door, thereafter descended the stoop and walked alongside Perez until they were arrested. In our opinion, though the evidence supported Perez’s conviction *(Knickerbocker*v. *People,*43 N. Y. 177; *People*v. *Foley,*307 N. Y. 490), it was legally insufficient to prove that Ramos was his accomplice (see *People*v. *Cleague,*22 N Y 2d 363; *People*v. *Kohn,*251 N. Y. 375).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MCNAIR, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00695-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

_____________________________________

JAMES CALLAHAN, )

)

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-00919-WKW

)

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the defendants’ Notice of Filing (Doc. # 124) and upon information

that the Alabama Department of Corrections intends to make modifications to its lethal injection

protocol, it is ORDERED that the parties shall show cause on or before September 28, 2007, at

12:00 p.m. CDT, why the trial in this matter should not be continued. The deadlines for filing joint

stipulations of facts, individual summary of contentions, trial briefs, and responses to motions in

limine are EXTENDED from September 28, 2007, to October 1, 2007.

DONE this 27th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 127 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

HOWARD GLEN TOOLE, )

#C 917 683 )

)

Petitioner, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:06cv696-MHT

) (WO) 

JAMES McDONOUGH, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion entered

this date, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the

court as follows:

(1) The petitioner's objections (Doc. No. 43) are

overruled.

(2) The United States Magistrate Judge's

recommendation (Doc. No. 39) is adopted.

(3) The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No.

1) is denied.

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 45 Filed 10/30/08 Page 1 of 2
It is further ORDERED that costs are taxed against

petitioner, for which execution may issue.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this

document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant

to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE, this the 30th day of October, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00696-MHT-TFM Document 45 Filed 10/30/08 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           18868
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      157
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19028
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   19028
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              322
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       18706
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     19028
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14628
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (255)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     13745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   239.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   239.30
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gordon C. Fink, Appellant.

Staley, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Otsego County, entered April 25, 1966, resentencing the defendant upon a plea of guilty to the crime of burglary in the third degree to a term of not less than 10 years, nor more than 20 years, and to the crime of grand larceny in the second degree to a term of not less than 5 years, nor more than 10 years, both sentences to run concurrently. The defendant was originally sentenced on July 17, 1956, by the same Judge, for the same crimes as a third felony offender to terms of not less than 10 years, nor more than 11 years on the burglary count, and not less than 5 years, nor more than 10 years on the grand larceny count, both sentences to run concurrently, hut to commence after service of the balance of a sentence as a result of a conviction in Otsego County in the year 1940. The appellant instituted a proceeding in the United States District Court which found in his favor, that the 1940 conviction was invalid because he had not been afforded the constitutional *894right to assistance of counsel, and that court remanded him to the Supreme Court of Otsego County for resentence upon the July 17, 1956 conviction. Pursuant to the order of the District Court, the defendant was resentenced by the Supreme Court, Otsego County to longer terms than the sentence imposed in 1956. He contends that the sentence of April 25, 1966 is excessive, and in violation of his constitutional rights. Harsher penalties may constitutionally be imposed upon resentence, if there exists a valid reason for the imposition of such sentence. *(Patton*v. *State of North Carolina,*256 F. Supp. 225.) In the instant case, the reasons for the harsher sentence are not set forth in the record on resentence. It may be that the sentence was an improvident exercise of discretion, but this cannot be ascertained from the record. *(People*v. *Gerstenfeld,*14 A D 2d 517; *People*v. *Williams,*6 A D 2d 900; *People*v. *Small,*2 A D 2d 935.) The defendant also contends that the court should have permitted him an opportunity to produce evidence concerning an agreement alleged to have been made in 1956 concerning the sentence to be imposed. A promise of a sentence is material, and the defendant should have been afforded an opportunity to present his proof. *(People*v. *Scott,*10 N Y 2d 380; *People*v. *Parwulski,*18 A D 2d 775.) The issue of such an agreement having been brought to the attention of the court prior to sentencing, appellant’s request to produce evidence of the agreement should have been granted, rather than let the issue await determination in further proceedings. *(People ex rel. D’Agostino*v. *Murphy,*20 A D 2d 756.) These considerations require reversal of the judgment, and remand. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, to the extent of vacating the resentence imposed on April 25, 1966, and remanding the ease to Supreme Court, Otsego County, for the purpose of resentencing in accordance herewith. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum by Staley, Jr., J.