alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10887

Conference Calendar

DERRICK MCNAIRY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DAN JOSLIN, WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION SEAGOVILLE,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CV-1166

--------------------

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derrick McNairy, federal prisoner # 33456-077, was convicted

of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and

sentenced to serve 15 years in prison. He filed a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 habeas corpus petition to challenge his sentence, and he

now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241

petition. He argues that he should be permitted to pursue § 2241

relief in accordance with the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255

because the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate and because he is

actually innocent of his sentence. He relies on United States v.
No. 05-10887

-2-

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in support of his substantive

sentencing claims. 

McNairy has not shown that the district court erred in

determining that his purported § 2241 petition was best construed

as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v.

Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000); Cox v. Warden, Fed.

Det. Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). McNairy likewise

has not shown that he should be permitted to proceed under the

savings clause of § 2255. See Reyes-Requena v. United States,

243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448,

452-53 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
#### § 917.68 Liability of committee members.

No members of the Control Committee, any commodity committee, or other committee, or any subcommittee, or any employee of the Control Committee shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly with others, in any way whatsoever, to any shipper or any other person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member or employee, except for acts of dishonesty.

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 76 FR 66605, Oct. 27, 2011, § 917.68 was suspended indefinitely, effective Oct. 28, 2011.
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 andfind 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 thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION 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 of Photogen Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Taffy
J. Williams, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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
Company


/s/ TAFFY WILLIAMS
-------------------------------------
Taffy J. Williams, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
August 19, 2002

                                      28
#### § 981.37 Expenses.

The members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but shall be allowed their necessary expenses.
Subpart 716.3—Cost Reimbursement Contracts    **Parent topic:** PART 716—TYPES OF CONTRACTS716.303 Cost-sharing contracts.       (a)–(b) [Reserved]          (c) *Limitations.* In addition to the limitations specified in (48 CFR) FAR 16.301–3, prior approval of the M/OAA Director (see 701.601(a)(1)) is required in order to use a cost-sharing contract with an educational institution.716.306 [Reserved]716.406 Contract clauses.       The contracting officer must insert the clause at 752.216–70, Award Fee, in solicitations and contracts when an award-fee contract is contemplated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Nov-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  Aug-31-1996
<CASH>                        2,062,225
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              0
<PP&E>                        29,593,299
<DEPRECIATION>                9,844,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                22,320,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         969,623
<BONDS>                       6,326,211
<COMMON>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    15,024,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  22,320,284
<SALES>                       3,521,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              3,599,243
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,555,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              926,642
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            370,265
<INCOME-PRETAX>               746,409
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           746,409
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  746,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 12.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                 12.62
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

December 28, 2006

NOTICE OF ERROR

To: All Counsel of Record

Case Style: Brown v. Champion Enterprises, Inc. et al

Case Number: 2:06-cv-00642-MEF

Referenced Pleading: Motion to accept as timely filed

Docket Entry Number: 22

The referenced pleading was filed on **December 28, 2006*** in this case and 

is hereby STRICKEN as an erroneous docket entry pursuant to telephone conversation with

E-Filer. Pleadings will be re-filed correctly.

Parties are instructed to disregard #22 docketing entry, which has been stricken from the

record as a docketing error.

Case 2:06-cv-00642-MEF-SRW Document 23 Filed 12/28/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 2 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 3 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 4 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 5 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 6 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 7 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 8 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 9 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 10 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 11 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 12 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 13 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 14 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 15 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 16 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 17 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 18 of 19
Case 1:06-cv-00671-WHA-SRW Document 1 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 19 of 19
722.810 Solicitation provisions and contract

clauses.

(a) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 752.222–70, USAID Disability Policy in section I

of all solicitations and resulting contracts.

(b) The contracting officer must insert the clause at 752.222–71, Nondiscrimination in section I of all

solicitations and resulting contracts

Parent topic: Subpart 722.8—Equal Employment Opportunity
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
85-A  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of Net Lease Management
85-A, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of Net Lease Management
85-A,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              Net Lease Management 85-A, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 11, 2003



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              Net Lease Management 85-A, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 11, 2003
# Subpart 5241.2 - ACQUIRING UTILITY SERVICES

**Parent topic:**Part 5241 - ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES

## 5241.201 Policy.

   (c) Contracts for the operation of Government-owned facilities by a DON contractor that call for reimbursement of the contractor's utility expense shall specifically provide for the submission of utility subcontracts to NAVFACENGCOM for comment or approval prior to execution of the contract.
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 2 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 3 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 4 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 5 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 6 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 7 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 8 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 9 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 10 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 11 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 12 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 13 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 14 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 15 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 16 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 17 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 18 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 19 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 20 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 21 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 22 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 23 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 24 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 25 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 26 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 27 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 28 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 29 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 30 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 31 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 32 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 33 of 34
Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 43 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 34 of 34
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2925 

To suspend temporarily the duty on naphthalen-1-yl methylaminoformate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2006 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on naphthalen-1-yl 

methylaminoformate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NAPHTHALEN-1-YL METHYLAMINOFORMATE. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.29.24 Naphthalen-1-yl methylaminoformate 

(CAS No. 63–25–2) (provided for in subheading 2924.29.47) ................................ 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 2925 IS 

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Subpart 914.4 - Opening of Bids and Award

of Contract

Parent topic: PART 914 - SEALED BIDDING

914.404 Rejection of bids.

914.404-1 Cancellation of invitations after opening.

(c) The Senior Procurement Executives have been delegated authority to make the determination

under 48 CFR 14.404-1(c) and (e) and has redelegated this authority to the Heads of Contracting

Activities without power of redelegation.

914.407 Mistakes in bids.

914.407-3 Other mistakes disclosed before award.

(e) Pursuant to 48 CFR 14.407-3(e), the Senior Procurement Executives have been delegated

authority by the Secretary to make the determinations under 48 CFR 14.407-3. In the case of

mistakes in bids alleged after opening of bids and before award, the Senior Procurement Executives

have redelegated this authority to the Heads of Contracting Activities without power of redelegation

and to make administrative determinations regarding withdrawal of bids as provided for in 48 CFR

14.407-3, providing that each such determination shall be approved by Legal Counsel.

914.407-4 Mistakes after award.

The Senior Procurement Executives have been delegated authority to make the determinations

under 48 CFR 14.407-4. Mistakes in bids after award, together with the data set forth in 48 CFR

14.407-4(e), shall be submitted to the appropriate Senior Procurement Executive for decision.

914.409-2 Award of classified contracts.

DOE regulations regarding the safeguarding of restricted data and procedures for its destruction are

contained at 10 CFR part 1016.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT PRUETER, *

PLAINTIFF, *

VS. * CASE NO: 1:06-CV-694-VPM

CDA DETECTIVE & SECURITY *

SERVICES, et al.,

DEFENDANT. *

MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW plaintiff, Robert Prueter, by undersigned counsel, J. E. Sawyer, Jr. and 

moves this Honorable Court to dismiss this instant action without prejudice, and as grounds 

would show as follows:

1. Plaintiff avers that the instant action should be dismissed without prejudice to 

allow Plaintiff to exhaust all administrative and/or procedural remedies.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will dismiss the instant action 

without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to exhaust his administrative and/or procedural relief and for 

such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper in the premises.

Dated this 29th day of August, 2006.

___/s/J. E. Sawyer, Jr.__________________

J. E. Sawyer, Jr.

Attorney for Plaintiff

203 South Edwards Street

Enterprise, AL 36330

334/347-6447

Case 1:06-cv-00694-MHT-VPM Document 6 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 29, 2006 I have filed the above and foregoing electronically with 

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system and that notice of my filing of same will be 

electronically served on Mr. Everett Urech, Esquire and Mr. Jeff Weintrub, Esquire.

___/s/J. E. Sawyer, Jr.__________________

Case 1:06-cv-00694-MHT-VPM Document 6 Filed 08/29/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 14-2 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 33.2


[LOGO] GMAC Mortgage
       ----

                  Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance
                With Regulation AB Item 1122 Servicing Criteria

March 6, 2007

GMAC Mortgage, LLC (the "Company") has responsibility for assessing compliance
to Regulation AB Item 1122(d) Servicing Criteria for the GMACM Private Platform
(the "Platform"). As of, and for the period ending December 31, 2006, the
Company has used the applicable 1122(d) servicing criteria listed below for
assessing compliance:

            -     1122(d)(1)(i),(ii),(iv); 1122(d)(2)(i),(ii),(iii),(v),(vi),
                  (vii); 1122(d)(3)(iii),(iv); 1122(d)(4)(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),
                  (vii),(viii),(ix),(x),(xi),(xii),(xiii),(xiv),(xv)

The following servicing criteria are not applicable to the Company:

            -     1122(d)(1)(iii); 1122(d)(2)(iv); 1122(d)(3)(i),(ii);
                  1122(d)(4)(i),(ii)

The Company has engaged certain vendors (the "Vendors") to perform specific and
limited, or scripted activities, and the Company elects to take responsibility
for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to the Vendors
set forth below:

            -     1122(d)(2)(i) 1122(d)(4)(iv)

            -     A vendor posts cash receipts received via lockbox submission
                  to the Company's lockbox clearing account.

            -     1122(d)(4)(xi), (xiii)

            -     A vendor provides certain information to the Company to assist
                  the Company in making tax and insurance payments on behalf of
                  certain obligors.

The Company has not identified and is not aware of any material instance of
noncompliance by the Vendors 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 Company has not identified any material deficiency in its
policies and procedures to monitor the compliance by the Vendors 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 Company has complied, in all material respects, with the applicable
servicing criteria above as of and for the period ending December 31, 2006 for
the asset-backed transactions listed in Appendix A taken as a whole (such
transactions, collectively, the "GMACM Private Platform").

<PAGE>

An independent registered public accounting firm has issued an attestation
report on the Company's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria as of, and for the period ending December 31, 2006.


/s/ Anthony N. Renzi
---------------------------
Anthony N. Renzi
Executive Vice President
GMAC Mortgage, LLC
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 10 Filed 10/05/2006 Page 3 of 3