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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEMETRIOUS ADONIS MOORE, a/k/a Meechie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cr-00124-HMH-1; 6:13-

cv-01236-HMH)

Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 28, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetrious Adonis Moore, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Demetrious Adonis Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion seeking relief from its prior order denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 

motion 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 Moore has not 

made the requisite showing. Although Moore contended that his Rule 60(b) motion was 

a “true” Rule 60(b) motion, the motion effectively “attack[ed] the substance of the 

[district] court’s resolution of a [§ 2255] claim on the merits,” and thus was the functional 

equivalent of a successive § 2255 motion. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397

(4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 

531-32 (2005) (distinguishing between true Rule 60(b) motion and unauthorized 

successive habeas corpus petition); United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th 
3

Cir. 2003) (same). In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district 

court lacked jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3) (2012). 

Accordingly, we deny 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 decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
225 So.2d 8

#### JIM-ROY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Inc. and Hub City Investments, Inc. v. James D. PARKERSON.

No. 49741.

April 25, 1969.

In re: James D. Parkerson applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition.

Writs refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction. Relator has an adequate remedy in case of an adverse judgment on the merits. 224 So.2d 539.

I concur in the denial of the writ. I am further of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, the trial judge should be ordered to re-open the case; that defendant should be ordered to file an answer within fifteen days, so that the matter may be heard on the merits, with all parties given their day in Court. In the interest of justice the rights of First National Bank should be reserved to contest the issuance of the writ of subpoena duces tecum.

FOURNET, C. J., and SUMMERS, J.,

are of the opinion the writ should be granted. In our view the subpoena was improperly issued “without cause” and Parkerson has a right to assert this defense, though technically not properly presented. See dissent of Summers in Raia v. WWL-TV, 247 La. 1095, 176 So.2d 390 (1965) and La.R.S. 12:103; Code Civil Proc. Arts. 1436, 1492. Parkerson, as a substantial stockholder, has a right to the records of the bank and the right to object to their production when the request for production is unnecessary and will cause irreparable injury to the many bank Customers involved.
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-83,205-01
IN RE SAMUEL M. MAR TINEZ, Relat or
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 2002-046 IN THE DIST RICT COURT

F ROM CALDWELL COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamu s p u rsuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in the District Court of Caldwell County , that more than 3 5 day s have elapse d, and that the application has not y et bee n forwa rded to this Court. I n these circ um s t ances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the District Clerk of Caldwell County , is order ed to file a response , which may be made by submitt ing the rec ord on such habea s corpus a

pplication, submitt ing a copy of a timely filed order which desig nates iss ues t o be investigated ( see McCree v. Hampton , 824 S.W .2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that2

Relator has not filed an application for a wr i t o f h abeas corpus in Caldwell County
. Should the response include an order desig nating issues, proof of the date the district attorne y ’s o ff i ce was
serve d with the habea s application shall also be submitted with the response. T his application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abey ance until Respondent has su b m i t t ed the appropr iate re sponse. Such re sponse shall be submitted within 30 day s of the date of this order.
Filed: May

13, 2015 Do not publish
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. G O N ZA LO G O M EZ- M O RA LES, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10249 D. C . No . 2 : 9 1 - c r - 0 0 1 3 9 - E HC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona E a r l H . C a rr ol l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry15, 2011 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , a n dM . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . G on za l o G om ez -M oral es appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s order de ny i ng hi s 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on f orm odi f i c a t i on of

s e nt e nc e . W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. G om e z c ont e nds tha tA m e ndm e nt591 t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng 

# FI LED FEB 28 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10249 2 G ui del i nes, cl ar i fy i ng the appl i ca t i on of U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 2, autho ri ze s the di stri ct courtt o res ent ence hi m . T he re cord ref l ec t s thatG om ez ’ s bas e off ense l evel w as c a l c ul a t e d unde r§ 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 1) , r a the rtha n § 2D 1. 2; the r e f or e A m e ndm e nt591 do es no tappl y t o h i m . A cc ordi ng l y, G om ez cann otdem on stra t e thathi s s ent ence i s ba s e d on as e nt e nc i ng r a nge tha tha s s ubs e que nt l ybe e n l ow e r e d bythe S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n , a s r e q u ir e db y§ 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . See U ni ted States v. L e ni e ar , 5 7 4 F .3 d6 6 8 , 6 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . G om e z a l s o c ont e nds tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o r e l i e f unde rA m e ndm e nt591 because the drug qu ant i ty use d t o cal cul at e hi s bas e off ense l evel w as det erm i ned b yth e s e n te n c in g c o u rt, r a th e rth a n aju ry . T h is a r g u m e n t is f o r e c lo s e d . See D i l lon v. U

ni ted States , 13 0 S . C t . 26 83 , 26 92 (201 0) (procee di ng s und er § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) d o n o t im p lic a te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to h a v e e s s e n tia l f a c ts foun d b y aj ury bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt ). AF F I RME D.
#### § 490.809 Violations.

If a State or covered person that received a waiver under this subpart fails to comply with the petroleum motor fuel reduction or reporting requirements of this subpart, DOE will revoke the waiver and may impose on the State or covered person a penalty under subpart G of this part. A State or covered person whose waiver has been revoked by DOE is precluded from requesting an exemption under § 490.204 or § 490.307 from the vehicle acquisition mandate for the model year of the revoked waiver.

[79 FR 15907, Mar. 21, 2014]
§ 1042.205 Educational institutions and other entities controlled by religious organizations. ( a ) *Exemption.* These Title IX regulations do not apply to any operation of an educational institution or other entity that is controlled by a religious organization to the extent that application of these Title IX regulations would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.
( b ) *Exemption claims.* An educational institution or other entity that wishes to claim the exemption set forth in paragraph (a) of this section shall do so by submitting in writing to the designated agency official a statement by the highest-ranking official of the institution, identifying the provisions of these Title IX regulations that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          38,401
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,700
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                32,940
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    128,287
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           9,915
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            10,141
<LOANS>                                        587,197
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 838,892
<DEPOSITS>                                     687,585
<SHORT-TERM>                                    32,797
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,669
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,722
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 838,892
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 26,038
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,150
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,534
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                31,722
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,034
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           19,688
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      400
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  86
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,731
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,731
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,721
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.37
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,524
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,335
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  7,118
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,254
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      763
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,026
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,917
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,381
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,536
        

</TABLE>
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                                   FNB CORP.


     The undersigned corporation hereby submits these Articles of Amendment for
the purpose of amending its Articles of Incorporation:

     1.  The name of the corporation is FNB Corp.

     2.  The text of the amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the
corporation is as follows:

         RESOLVED, that the Articles of Incorporation of this corporation be and
     hereby are amended by deleting the first sentence of Article IV in its
     entirety and inserting therefor a new first sentence to read as follows:

         "The aggregate number of shares that the corporation shall have
         authority to issue is 10,200,000 shares, consisting of 10,000,000
         shares of Common Stock, par value $2.50 per share, and 200,000 shares
         of Preferred Stock, par value $10.00 per share."

     3.  The amendment was approved by the shareholders of the corporation on
May 12, 1998 in the manner required by the North Carolina Business Corporation
Act.

     This the 31st day of July, 1998.


                                         FNB CORP.


                                         By: _______________________________
                                             Michael C. Miller, President
#### Ernie Negron, Respondent, v Firestone Co., Inc., Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the opinion at Erie County Court, Dillon J. (Appeal from order of Erie County Court—breach of warranty.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Witmer and Moule, JJ.
#### Joseph Hoffman *vs.*William Meyer.

Submitted on briefs April 9, 1894.

Affirmed April 14, 1894.

No. 8504.

Review of order granting or refusing a new trial.

Rule in *Hicks*v. *Stone,*13 Minn. 434 (Gil. 398), followed.

Appeal by defendant, William Meyer, from an order of the District Court of Jackson County, *P. E. Brown,*J., made February 8,. 1893, granting the motion of plaintiff, Joseph Hoffman, for a new trial.

This action was to recover damages for an assault and battery. The answer was, *son assault demesne.*The parties were German. *26farmers who had quarrelled over the location of a comer stake between their lands. The evidence was conflicting. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, and the court on motion set it aside and granted a new trial. Defendant appeals.

*Thomas J. Knox,*for appellant.

*W. A. Funk,*for respondent.

Gileillan, C. J.

The evidence in this case was not manifestly in favor of the verdict, so that the case comes within the rule in *Hicks*v. *Stone,*13 Minn. 434 (Gil. 398), so often followed by the court.

Order affirmed.

Buck, *J.,*took no part in this decision.

(Opinion published 58 N. W. 684.)
Page 6 of 11




Page 11 of 11
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway Administration
        1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC 20590
        202-366-4000


About
		
	 
FHWA Organization
   	Headquarters Offices
    Field Offices
    Careers
    Strategic Plan
    Business Opportunities
    Staff Directories
    Highway History
	Programs
		
	 
Acquisition Management
	
	Civil Rights
	Federal Lands Highway
    Infrastructure
    Innovative Program Delivery
    Operations
    Planning, Environment, and Realty
    Policy
    Research, Development & Technology
    Safety
    Browse by Topics
	Resources
		
			 
Core Highway Topics
  Federal-Aid Essentials
  Automation
  Complete Streets
  Publications & Statistics
  Laws & Regulations
  Policy & Guidance Center
  Section 508
  Professional Development
  National Highway Institute (NHI)
  Resource Center
  Accessibility Resource Library
  FHWA Research Library
	Briefing Room
	 
	 
Press Releases
	Speeches & Testimony
    Photos
    Videos
    Media Contacts
	Contact
	
	Search FHWA


**Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology**Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations


Report**This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information** Federal Highway Administration >
  
    Publications >
  
    Research Publications >
  
    Human Factors >
  
    00092.Cfm >
   In-Vehicle Information Systems Demand System **Publication Number: FHWA-RD-00-092
    Date: April 2000**In-Vehicle Information Systems Demand System



**Research Update:**

FHWA-RD-00-092, April 2000 (254 KB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®       

			



	FHWA-RD-00-092 Page Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Safety, RDT
          
          
          
          Topics: research, safety, human factors, data and analysis tools
              
                Keywords: research, safety, In-vehicle information systems, design support, design tool, behavioral model, model, attention demand, figure of demand 
              
                TRT Terms: In-vehicle information systems, design support, design tool, behavioral model, model, attention demand, figure of demand; Topics: research, safety, human factors, data and analysis tools
              
                  Scheduled Update: Archive -  No Update needed
          
          
          
          
This page last modified on 06/29/2016


|Return to top
|-------------

Privacy Policy Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Accessibility Web Policies & Notices No Fear Act Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse  U.S. DOT Home USA.gov WhiteHouse.gov
 Federal Highway Administration  Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
PGI 217.7701 Procedures.

(1) Contracts for the performance of maintenance, overhaul, modification, and repair of various

items (e.g., aircraft, engines, ground support equipment, ships) generally contain over and above

work requirements. When they do, the contracting officer shall establish a separate contract line

item for the over and above work.

(2) Over and above requirements task the contractor to identify needed repairs and recommend

corrective action during contract performance. The contractor submits a work request to identify the

over and above work and, as appropriate, the Government authorizes the contractor to proceed.

(3) The clause at DFARS 252.217-7028, Over and Above Work, requires the contractor and the

contracting officer responsible for administering the contract to negotiate specific procedures for

Government administration and contractor performance of over and above work requests.

(4) The contracting officer may issue a blanket work request authorization describing the manner in

which individual over and above work requests will be administered and setting forth a dollar

limitation for all over and above work under the contract. The blanket work request authorization

may be in the form of a letter or contract modification (Standard Form 30).

(5) Over and above work requests are within the scope of the contract. Therefore, procedures in

DFARS Subpart 217.74, Undefinitized Contract Actions, do not apply.

(6) To the maximum extent practical, over and above work shall be negotiated prior to performance

of the work.

Parent topic: PGI 217.77 -OVER AND ABOVE WORK
2109.7001 Minimum standards for FEGLI

Program contractors.

(a) The Contractor must meet the requirements of chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code; part 870

of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations; chapter 1 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations; and the

standards in this subpart. The Contractor must continue to meet these and the following statutory

and regulatory requirements while under contract with OPM. Failure to meet these requirements

and standards is cause for OPM's termination of the contract in accordance with part 2149 of this

chapter.

(b) The contractor must actually be engaged in the life insurance business and must be licensed to

transact life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance under the laws of all the States and

the District of Columbia at the time of application.

(c) The contractor must not be a Federal, State, local or territorial government entity.

(d) The contractor must not be debarred, suspended or ineligible to participate in Government

contracting or subcontracting for any reason.

(e) The contractor must keep statistical and financial records regarding the FEGLI Program separate

from that of all its other lines of business.

(f) The Contractor agrees to enter into annual premium rate redeterminations with OPM.

(g) The Contractor must furnish such reasonable reports as OPM determines are necessary to

administer the FEGLI Program. The cost of preparation of such reports will be considered an

allowable expense within the administrative expense ceiling defined in section 2152.231-70 of this

chapter.

(h) The contractor must establish and maintain a system of internal control that provides reasonable

assurance that:

(1) The payment of claims and other expenses is in compliance with legal, regulatory, and

contractual guidelines;

(2) Funds, property, and other FEGLI Program assets are safeguarded against waste, loss,

unauthorized use, or misappropriation;

(3) Revenues and expenditures applicable to FEGLI Program operations are properly recorded and

accounted for to permit the preparation of reliable financial reporting and to maintain accountability

over assets; and,

(4) Data are accurately and fairly disclosed in all reports required by OPM.

(i) The contractor must permit representatives of OPM and of the General Accounting Office to audit

and examine records and accounts pertaining to the FEGLI Program at such reasonable times and

places as may be designated by OPM or the General Accounting Office.

Parent topic: Subpart 2109.70 - Minimum Standards for FEGLI Program Contractors