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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7763

DONTEZ LAMONT SIMUEL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NORTH

CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-02-898-5-H)

Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 13, 2004

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dontez Lamont Simuel, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dontez Lamont Simuel seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Simuel has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We deny Simuel’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis. 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
Exhibit
21.1
 Subsidiaries
(all are 100% owned)
 **Name**
    
    **Jurisdiction**Level
      8 Technologies, Inc.
    
    DelawareCicero
      Technologies, Inc,
    
    DelawareTemplate
      Software de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
    
    MexicoLevel
      8 Systems Australia Pty Ltd
    
    AustraliaTemplate
      Software Holding GmbH
    
    GermanyTemplate
      SoftwareGeschaftsfuhrungs GmbH
    
    GermanyTemplate
      Software GmbH
    
    GermanyLevel
      8 Worldwide Holdings Ltd
    
    DelawareSeer
      Technologies de Argentina S.A
    
    ArgentinaLevel
      8 FSC, Inc
    
    BarbadosLevel
      8 Benelux B.V
    
    NetherlandsSeer
      Technologies do Brasil Ltd.
    
    BrazilLevel
      8 Canada, Inc
    
    CanadaLevel
      8 Europe (Deutschland) GmbH
    
    GermanyLevel
      8 Ireland Limited
    
    IrelandLevel
      8 Italia S.R.L.
    
    ItalyLevel
      8 Systems Nordic AB
    
    SwedenSeer
      Korea Co., Limited
    
    KoreaSeer
      Technologies Singapore PTY, Limited
    
    SingaporeSeer
      Technologies Hong Kong Limited
    
    Hong
      Kong3020126
      Canada, Inc. (fka Bizware)
    
    Canada
Editorial Note on Part 101
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 101 appear at 63 FR 14035, Mar. 24, 1998, 66 FR 17358, Mar. 30, 2001, 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001, and 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

§ 101.42 Nutrition labeling of raw fruit, vegetables, and fish. ( a ) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urges food retailers to provide nutrition information, as provided in § 101.9(c), for raw fruit, vegetables, and fish at the point-of-purchase. If retailers choose to provide such information, they should do so in a manner that conforms to the guidelines in § 101.45.
( b ) In § 101.44, FDA has listed the 20 varieties of raw fruit, vegetables, and fish that are most frequently consumed during a year and to which the guidelines apply.
( c ) FDA has also defined in § 101.43, the circumstances that constitute substantial compliance by food retailers with the guidelines.
( d ) By May 8, 1993, FDA will issue a report on actions taken by food retailers to provide consumers with nutrition information for raw fruit, vegetables, and fish under the guidelines established in § 101.45. ( 1 ) The report will include a determination of whether there is substantial compliance, as defined in § 101.43, with the guidelines.
( 2 ) In evaluating substantial compliance, FDA will consider only the 20 varieties of raw fruit, vegetables, and fish most frequently consumed as identified in § 101.44.
( e ) If FDA finds that there is substantial compliance with the guidelines for the nutrition labeling of raw fruit and vegetables or of fish, the agency will so state in the report, and the guidelines will remain in effect. FDA will reevaluate the market place for substantial compliance every 2 years.
( f ) If FDA determines that there is not substantial compliance with the guidelines for raw fruit and vegetables or for raw fish, the agency will at that time issue proposed regulations requiring that any person who offers raw fruit and vegetables or fish to consumers provide, in a manner prescribed by regulations, the nutrition information required by § 101.9. Final regulations would have to be issued 6 months after issuance of proposed regulations, and they would become effective 6 months after the date of their promulgation.
###### Editorial Note on Part 112

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 112.40 What requirements of this subpart apply to my covered farm?

This subpart applies to agricultural water used for, or intended for use in, growing, harvesting, packing, or holding covered produce. If you are using agricultural water for a covered activity listed in the first column, then you must meet the requirements in the second column. You also must meet the requirements in the third column, if applicable.

| If you use agricultural water for this covered activity | Then you must meet these requirements | If applicable, you also must meet these requirements |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (a) Growing covered produce (other than sprouts) | § 112.41 | (quality standard) | § 112.45 | (measures). |
| | § 112.42 | (inspections and maintenance) | § 112.46 | (treatment). |
| | § 112.43 | (agricultural water assessment) | § 112.47 | (who may test). |
| | § 112.50 | (records) | § 112.151 | (test methods). |
| (b) Sprout irrigation water | § 112.41 | (quality standard) | § 112.44(b) | (testing untreated ground water). |
| | § 112.42 | (inspections and maintenance) | § 112.45 | (measures). |
| | § 112.44(a) | (microbial quality criterion) | § 112.46 | (treatment). |
| | § 112.50 | (records) | § 112.47 | (who may test). |
| | | | § 112.151 | (test methods). |
| (c) Harvesting, packing, or holding covered produce | § 112.41 | (quality standard) | § 112.44(b) | (testing untreated ground water). |
| | § 112.42 | (inspections and maintenance) | § 112.45 | (measures). |
| | § 112.44(a) | (microbial quality criterion) | § 112.46 | (treatment). |
| | § 112.44(d) | (additional management and monitoring) | § 112.47 | (who may test). |
| | § 112.50 | (records) | § 112.151 | (test methods) |

Table 1 to § 112.40
#### § 114.83 Establishing scheduled processes.

The scheduled process shall be established by a qualified person who has expert knowledge acquired through appropriate training and experience in the acidification and processing of acidified foods.
§ 1002.11 Supplemental reports. Prior to the introduction into commerce of a new or modified model within a model or chassis family of a product listed in table 1 of § 1002.1 for which a report under § 1002.10 is required, each manufacturer shall submit a report with respect to such new or modified model describing any changes in the information previously submitted in the product report. Reports will be required for changes that: ( a ) Affect actual or potential radiation emission.
( b ) Affect the manner of compliance with a standard or manner of testing for radiation safety.
#### § 1313.57 Final order.

As soon as practicable after the presiding officer has certified the record to the Administrator, the Administrator shall issue his order regarding the suspension of shipment. The order shall include the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the order is based. The Administrator shall serve one copy of his order upon each party in the hearing.
#### James MESSER, Jr., Petitioner/Appellant, v. Ralph KEMP, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent/Appellee.

No. 86-8506.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 8, 1986.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 5,1986.

See also, 11th Cir., 794 F.2d 572.

Howard Manchel, Robert L. McGlasson, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner/appellant.

Mary Beth Westmoreland, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. Hill, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent/appellee.

Before RONEY, HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

We deny the application for a certificate of probable cause for the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion. We expand upon the conclusions therein to the extent that were we to consider the *Ake*claim on its merits we would find that petitioner has failed to make out a “colorable claim” based upon the record presented. Multiple requests for funds for a private psychiatric examination, standing alone, are insufficient.

The stay of execution entered earlier expires at 10:00 a.m. E.D.T. on Wednesday, July 9, 1986.
Exhibit
      32.2 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 Calgon Carbon Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Leroy M. Ball, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that **** to
      the
      best of my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company for the periods
      presented therein.





/s/
                Leroy M. BallChief
                Financial OfficerNovember
                10, 2008





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-92,172-01

EX P ARTE ST EVEN LAMONTE WIL LIAMS, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 649626-A IN THE 178TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to ag g rava ted sexual assault and was sentenc ed to fifty y ear s’ imprisonment. He filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler

k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends, among other thi ng s, that a 2013 lab report in the record ex cludes him

as a contributor to DNA profiles. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Ex parte Elizondo , 947 S.W .2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Acc ording ly , t h e re co rd should be develope d. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f t he trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hearing , it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent.2

I f he is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d b y co unsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel i s ap p o i n t ed or reta ined, the trial c ourt shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions o f l aw as t o whether Applicant has prese nted newly available or discovere d evidenc e that proves by clea r and convincing evidenc e that he is actua lly innocent. The trial court m ay m ak e an y other finding s and conclusions that it deems a ppropriate in response to Applica nt’s claims. The trial court s h all make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, p roposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: F ebrua

ry 10, 2021 Do not publish
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.177 Can an approved variance apply to any person other than those identified in the petition requesting that variance? ( a ) A State, tribe, or a foreign country that believes that a variance requested by a petition submitted by another State, tribe, or foreign country should also apply to similarly situated persons in its jurisdiction may request that the variance be applied to its similarly situated persons by submitting comments in accordance with § 10.30 of this chapter. These comments must include the information required in § 112.173. If FDA determines that these comments should instead be treated as a separate request for a variance, FDA will notify the State, tribe, or foreign country that submitted these comments that a separate request must be submitted in accordance with §§ 112.172 and 112.173.
( b ) If we grant a petition requesting a variance, in whole or in part, we may specify that the variance also applies to persons in a specific location who are similarly situated to those identified in the petition.
( c ) If we specify that the variance also applies to persons in a specific location who are similarly situated to those identified in the petition, we will inform the applicable State, tribe, or foreign country where the similarly situated persons are located of our decision in writing and will publish a notice on our Web site announcing our decision to apply the variance to similarly situated persons in that particular location.
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.163 May I use existing records to satisfy the requirements of this part? ( a ) Existing records (*e.g.,* records that are kept to comply with other Federal, State, or local regulations, or for any other reason) do not need to be duplicated if they contain all of the required information and satisfy the requirements of this part. Existing records may be supplemented as necessary to include all of the required information and satisfy the requirements of this part.
( b ) The information required by this part does not need to be kept in one set of records. If existing records contain some of the required information, any new information required by this part may be kept either separately or combined with the existing records.
PUBLIC LAW 108–273—JULY 7, 2004 118 STAT. 819

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2017 (H.R. 3742):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–556 accompanying H.R. 3742 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

June 9, considered and passed Senate.

June 22, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 108–273

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the United States courthouse and post office building located at 93

Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the ‘‘Luis A. Ferre ́ United States Courthouse and Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LUIS A. FERRE ́ UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND POST

OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse and post office

building located at 93 Atocha Street in Ponce, Puerto Rico, shall

be known and designated as the ‘‘Luis A. Ferre ́ United States

Courthouse and Post Office Building’’.

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

document, paper or other record of the United States to the courthouse and post office building referred to in subsection (a) shall

be deemed to be a reference to the Luis A. Ferre ́ United States

Courthouse and Post Office Building.

Approved July 7, 2004.

July 7, 2004

[S. 2017]
# EUR-Lex - 31992D0281 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992D0281

**92/281/EEC: Commission Decision of 8 May 1992 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by the United Kingdom (Only the English text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 150 , 02/06/1992 P. 0023 - 0023 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 8 May 1992 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by the United Kingdom (Only the English text is authentic) (92/281/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), as last amended by Directive 91/496/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,

Whereas by letter dated 1 July 1991 the United Kingdom transmitted a plan to the Commission;

Whereas the plan has been examined and found to meet the requirements of Directive 90/539/EEC, and in particular Annex II thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan submitted by the United Kingdom for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs is hereby approved.

Article 2

The United Kingdom shall bring into force by 1 May 1992 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the United Kingdom. Done at Brussels, 8 May 1992. For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 303, 31. 10. 1990, p. 6. (2) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 56.
IV 

House Calendar No. 216 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 925 

[Report No. 109–579] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United 

States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2006 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered 

to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5684) to 

implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement. 

1 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution 

2 it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 

3 order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5684) to 

4 implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agree5 ment. The bill shall be considered as read. The bill shall 

6 be debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled 

7 by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
2 

HRES 925 RH 

1 Committee on Ways and Means. Pursuant to section 151 

2 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question shall be 

3 considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 

4 intervening motion. 

5 SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5684 pursuant 

6 to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 

7 previous question, the Chair may postpone further consid8 eration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker 

9 in consonance with section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974. 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS

wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 216 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 925 

[Report No. 109

–579] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5684) 

Trade Agreement. to implement the United States-Oman Free 

JULY 19, 2006 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
[4910-13-Pj

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

"rulUlEl<<;E.')

Oun"" "' •• oo~

RIN 2120-AA64

listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory LontinUing airworthiness

information (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority if another country to identify

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe '"'l'IAW,,G

(-(~

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300, A300-600. and A31 0 Airplanes

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

14 CFR Part 39

.:z 0 iD~ OLiilS

(Docket No. FAA-W99-*****; Directorate Identifier 008-NM-090-AD)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), D0T.

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the products

condition as:

Two cases of complete nose landing gear (NLf) shock absorber bolts

failure were re~orted to the manufacturer. In bot cases, the crew was

unable to retrac~ the gear and was forced to anlln Flight Turn Back. In one

case, the aircra~t experienced a low speed runfa excursion. The root

cause of the bo~ts failure has been identified beil g due to a bolt(s) overtorque. The investigation has highlighted that th design of the NLG shock

absorber was not tolerant to the over-torque, ahd an inspection plan has

, ,

been developed! to track any NLG shock abSOrber-to-mam barrel

altadunent bolts status. * * *

* * * * * * *

The proposed AD would reqUlre actions that are intendetl to address the unsafe conditio

described in the MeAl.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed by [insert date 30 days after

{<7

date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
#### § 1.70 Scope.

This subpart specifies the data elements that are required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be included in an electronic import entry submitted in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system or any other U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)-authorized electronic data interchange (EDI) system, which contains an article that is being imported or offered for import into the United States and that is regulated by FDA.