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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6648 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GARY LEE BEATTY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-01-86; CA-04-17-7-F)

Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Lee Beatty, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Joseph McNulty, United

States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gary Lee Beatty seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Beatty has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We deny Beatty’s motion for an enlargement of time to

amend his § 2255 motion to raise a claim under Blakely v.

Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 2004 WL 1402697 (U.S. June 24, 2004),

because Blakely does not apply in the § 2255 context. See

generally Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311 (1989); United

States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 148 (4th Cir. 2001). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
§ 1303.32 Purpose of hearing. ( a ) The Administrator may, in his sole discretion, and shall, if determined by the Administrator to be necessary under § 1303.11(c) or 1303.13(c) based on objection by a state, hold a hearing for the purpose of receiving factual evidence regarding any one or more issues (to be specified by him) involved in the determination or adjustment of any aggregate production quota.
( b ) If requested by a person applying for or holding a procurement quota or an individual manufacturing quota, the Administrator shall hold a hearing for the purpose of receiving factual evidence regarding the issues involved in the issuance, adjustment, suspension, or denial of such quota to such person, but the Administrator need not hold a hearing on the suspension of a quota pursuant to § 1301.36 of this chapter separate from a hearing on the suspension of registration pursuant to those sections.
( c ) Extensive argument should not be offered into evidence but rather presented in opening or closing statements of counsel or in memoranda or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
[36 FR 7786, Apr. 24, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 15920, Aug. 8, 1972. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973, as amended at 62 FR 13958, Mar. 24, 1997; 83 FR 32790, July 16, 2018]
###### Editorial Note on Part 112

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 112.141 What commodities are subject to this subpart?

The requirements of this subpart apply to growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of all sprouts, except soil- or substrate-grown sprouts harvested without their roots.
#### § 1250.93 Discharge of wastes.

Vessels operating on fresh water lakes or rivers shall not discharge sewage, or ballast or bilge water, within such areas adjacent to domestic water intakes as are designated by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Cross Reference:

For Environmental Protection Agency's regulations for vessel sanitary discharges as related to authority under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended ([33 U.S.C. 1314](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/33/1314) *et seq.*), see [40 CFR part 140](/on/2024-09-17/title-40/part-140).

[[40 FR 5624](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/40-FR-5624), Feb. 6, 1975, as amended at [48 FR 11432](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/48-FR-11432), Mar. 18, 1983]
226 So.2d 771

#### Walter Truitt BOOTY v. AMERICAN FINANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50024.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: Walter Truitt Booty applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Cad-do. 224 So.2d 512.

The application is denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### § 1303.37 Final order.

As soon as practicable after the presiding officer has certified the record to the Administrator, the Administrator shall issue his order on the determination or adjustment of the aggregate production quota or on the issuance, adjustment, suspension, or denial of the procurement quota or individual manufacturing quota, as case may be. The order shall include the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the order is based. The order shall specify the date on which it shall take effect. The Administrator shall serve one copy of his order upon each party in the hearing.

[36 FR 7786, Apr. 24, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 15920, Aug. 8, 1972. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973]
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 17.11 Default upon failure to file an answer. ( a ) If the respondent does not file an answer within the time prescribed in § 17.9 and if service has been effected as provided in § 17.7, the presiding officer shall assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, and, if such facts establish liability under the relevant statute, the presiding officer shall issue an initial decision within 30 days of the time the answer was due, imposing: ( 1 ) The maximum amount of penalties provided for by law for the violations alleged; or
( 2 ) The amount asked for in the complaint, whichever amount is smaller.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, by failing to file a timely answer, the respondent waives any right to a hearing and to contest the amount of the penalties and assessments imposed under paragraph (a) of this section, and the initial decision shall become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after it is issued.
( c ) If, before such a decision becomes final, the respondent files a motion seeking to reopen on the grounds that extraordinary circumstances prevented the respondent from filing an answer, the initial decision shall be stayed pending a decision on the motion.
( d ) If, on such motion, the respondent can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances excusing the failure to file an answer in a timely manner, the presiding officer may withdraw the decision under paragraph (a) of this section, if such a decision has been issued, and shall grant the respondent an opportunity to answer the complaint as provided in § 17.9(a).
( e ) If the presiding officer decides that the respondent's failure to file an answer in a timely manner is not excused, he or she shall affirm the decision under paragraph (a) of this section, and the decision shall become final and binding upon the parties 30 days after the presiding officer issues the decision on the respondent's motion filed under paragraph (c) of this section.
#### § 1108.280 Participant support costs.

*Participant support costs* means direct costs for items such as stipends or subsistence allowances, travel allowances, and registration fees paid to or on behalf of participants or trainees (but not employees) in connection with conferences or training projects.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-34]



[[Page 999]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLWO620000.L18200000.XH0000]


Notice of Reestablishment of Bureau of Land Management Resource 
Advisory Councils

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of reestablishment of Resource Advisory Councils.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) has reestablished the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
Resource Advisory Councils for the States of Alaska, California, 
Colorado, Montana/Dakotas, New Mexico, Oregon/Washington, and Utah.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Sandoval, Legislative Affairs 
and Correspondence (600), Bureau of Land Management, 1620 L Street, 
NW., MS-LS-401, Washington, DC 20036, telephone (202) 912-7434.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in accordance with 
Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, Public 
Law 92-463. The BLM has renewed the Alaska, Northwestern California, 
Northeastern California, Central California, Colorado Front Range, 
Southwest Colorado, Northwest Colorado, Central Montana, Eastern 
Montana, Western Montana, Dakotas, New Mexico, Southeast Oregon, 
Eastern Washington, John Day-Snake, and Utah Resource Advisory 
Councils.
    Certification Statement: I hereby certify that the reestablishment 
of the BLM Resource Advisory Councils is necessary and in the public 
interest in connection with the Secretary's responsibilities to manage 
the lands, resources, and facilities administered by the BLM.

Ken Salazar,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2010-34 Filed 1-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00003-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 62nd District Court

Delta County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11100

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant has filed a motion with this Court seeking to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. 

Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 18, 2019

Date Decided: March 19, 2019
#### Yessenia SOTO-MORALES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-75044.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 19, 2005.

Before: HALL, T.G. NELSON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Yessenia Soto-Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, *see Thomas v. Gonzales,*409 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), we grant the petition for review.

Soto-Morales testified that her husband was murdered in her presence and that the killers told her they would do the same to her if she said anything. The IJ denied relief because Soto-Morales did not establish that her husband’s murder, and the threats to her life, were on account of a protected ground.

*544We grant the petition for review and remand for the agency to re-evaluate Soto-Morales’s claim in light of our recent decision in *Thomas. See id.*

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.164 How long must I keep records? ( a ) ( 1 ) You must keep records required by this part for at least 2 years past the date the record was created.
( 2 ) Records that a farm relies on during the 3-year period preceding the applicable calendar year to satisfy the criteria for a qualified exemption, in accordance with §§ 112.5 and 112.7, must be retained as long as necessary to support the farm's status during the applicable calendar year.
( b ) Records that relate to the general adequacy of the equipment or processes or records that relate to analyses, sampling, or action plans being used by a farm, including the results of scientific studies, tests, and evaluations, must be retained at the farm for at least 2 years after the use of such equipment or processes, or records related to analyses, sampling, or action plans, is discontinued.
I

 

 
| (logo) WELLS       FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

 

MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel: 410 884 2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 Broadway

Attn: Mortgage Backed Securities

New York, New York 10036

 

 

 

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill

Lynch Trust 2013-C9, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series

2013-C9

 

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2013 (the "Agreement" ), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the "Reporting Period" ) :

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

 

March 9, 2015

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH 

Vice President 

 

 

 

 

 

 
| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |   |
|------------------------|--------|
§ 1140.34 Sale and distribution of nontobacco items and services, gifts, and sponsorship of events. ( a ) No manufacturer and no distributor of imported cigarettes or smokeless tobacco may market, license, distribute, sell, or cause to be marketed, licensed, distributed, or sold any item (other than cigarettes or smokeless tobacco or roll-your-own paper) or service, which bears the brand name (alone or in conjunction with any other word), logo, symbol, motto, selling message, recognizable color or pattern of colors, or any other indicia of product identification identical or similar to, or identifiable with, those used for any brand of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
( b ) No manufacturer, distributor, or retailer may offer or cause to be offered any gift or item (other than cigarettes or smokeless tobacco) to any person purchasing cigarettes or smokeless tobacco in consideration of the purchase thereof, or to any person in consideration of furnishing evidence, such as credits, proofs-of-purchase, or coupons, of such a purchase.
( c ) No manufacturer, distributor, or retailer may sponsor or cause to be sponsored any athletic, musical, artistic, or other social or cultural event, or any entry or team in any event, in the brand name (alone or in conjunction with any other word), logo, symbol, motto, selling message, recognizable color or pattern of colors, or any other indicia of product identification identical or similar to, or identifiable with, those used for any brand of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. Nothing in this paragraph prevents a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer from sponsoring or causing to be sponsored any athletic, musical, artistic, or other social or cultural event, or team or entry, in the name of the corporation which manufactures the tobacco product, provided that both the corporate name and the corporation were registered and in use in the United States prior to January 1, 1995, and that the corporate name does not include any brand name (alone or in conjunction with any other word), logo, symbol, motto, selling message, recognizable color or pattern of colors, or any other indicia of product identification identical or similar to, or identifiable with, those used for any brand of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
§ 121.130 Vulnerability assessment to identify significant vulnerabilities and actionable process steps. ( a ) *Requirement for a vulnerability assessment.* You must conduct or have conducted a vulnerability assessment for each type of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held at your facility using appropriate methods to evaluate each point, step, or procedure in your food operation to identify significant vulnerabilities and actionable process steps. Appropriate methods must include, at a minimum, an evaluation of: ( 1 ) The potential public health impact (*e.g.,* severity and scale) if a contaminant were added;
( 2 ) The degree of physical access to the product; and
( 3 ) The ability of an attacker to successfully contaminate the product.
( b ) *Inside attacker.* The assessment must consider the possibility of an inside attacker.
( c ) *Written vulnerability assessment.* Regardless of the outcome, the vulnerability assessment must be written and must include an explanation as to why each point, step, or procedure either was or was not identified as an actionable process step.
§ 133.125 Cold-pack cheese food with fruits, vegetables, or meats. ( a ) Cold-pack cheese food with fruits, vegetables, or meats or mixtures of these is the food which conforms to the definition and standard of identity, and is subject to the requirements for label declaration of ingredients, prescribed for cold pack cheese food by § 133.124, except that: ( 1 ) Its milk fat content is not less than 22 percent.
( 2 ) It contains one or any mixture of two or more of the following: Any properly prepared fresh, cooked, canned, or dried vegetable; any properly prepared cooked or canned meat.
( 3 ) When the added fruits, vegetables, or meats contain fat, the method prescribed for the determination of fat by § 133.5(b) and (d) is not applicable.
( b ) The name of a cold-pack cheese food with fruits, vegetables or meats is “Cold-pack cheese food with ______”, the blank being filled in with the common or usual name or names of the fruits, vegetables, or meats used, in order of predominance by weight.
[42 FR 14366, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 10093, Mar. 19, 1984; 58 FR 2892, Jan. 6, 1993]
#### Louis Kalman, Respondent, v. Bernard Welsh, Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, in which a default judgment for plaintiff was entered in the District Court of Nassau County on March 11, 1966, defendant appeals (by permission) from an order of the Appellate Term of-the 'Supreme Court, Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts, dated September 13, 1968, which (1) reversed an order of said District Court, dated January 8, 1968, granting defendant’s motion to open his default, but directing the judgment to stand as security, and (2) denied said motion. Order of the Appellate Term reversed; and order of the District Court modified by striking therefrom the award of costs to plaintiff, and said order affirmed as so modified. The determination herein is made on the law and the facts and without costs. The ease may be restored to the Day Calendar of the District Court for a day certain on five days’ notice, subject to the approval of the Justice presiding. The Appellate Term’s reversal was based upon the determination of that learned court that the granting of defendant’s motion was an improvident exercise of discretion. Despite the fact that defendant’s attorneys were neglectful, the default was not willful and there is an arguable defense. It was, therefore, a proper exercise of discretion on the part of the District Court to open the default *(Machina*v. *Pryzgoda,*282 App. Div. 1051; *Abrams*v. *Barnes,*16 A D 2d 936; *Matter of Miller,*162 Misc. 563, affd. 252 App. Div. 872). Plaintiff’s attorneys should promptly have served a copy of the judgment, with notice of entry, upon defendant’s attorneys. Their attempt to serve defendant, himself, by mail, was ineffectual. It is un contradicted that defendant did not receive the mailed notice of entry for an inordinate length of time, having moved from the address to which the notice was directed. CPLR 2103 (subd. [b]), which requires service of papers upon counsel, in pending actions, applies to notice of entry of judgment *(O’Neill*v. *Ridner,*42 Misc 2d 312; *Fortis*v. *Glens Falls Ins. Co.,*23 A D 2d 88, 92, affd. 18 N Y 2d 779). Plaintiff may not be heard to complain of defendant’s delay in moving to open his default. Defendant’s attorneys were not served with notice of entry of judgment until almost a year after the entry. The motion was made promptly after receipt of notice by the attorneys. Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
(logo) C-III | C-III AssetManagement 

 

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

**C-III Asset Management LLC**

 

 

The undersigned, Barry Davis,President of C-III Asset Management LLC (*f/k/a Centerline Servicing LLC*),the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement datedas of March 1, 2013, relating to the **J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial MortgageSecurities Trust 2013-C10, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2013-C10** (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), hereby certifiesas follows:

 

1.       a review of the activities of the Special Servicer andof its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement during thecalendar year 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) has been made under theundersigned’s supervision;

 

2.       to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based onsuch review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under thePooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

Capitalized terms nototherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling andServicing Agreement.

 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, as of the 1st day of March, 2019, I have hereuntosigned my name.

 

 

/s/ Barry Davis

**Barry Davis**, President

C-III Asset Management LLC, a

Delaware limited liabilitycompany 

 

 

JPM 2013-C10
§ 1128.725 Program income after the period of performance. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.307(f) provides that an agency may specify in agency regulations, grant or cooperative agreement terms and conditions, or agreements negotiated with recipients during the closeout process that a recipient is accountable to the Federal Government for program income earned after the end of the period of performance.
( b ) *DoD implementation.* A DoD Component should rarely, if ever, establish a requirement for a recipient to be accountable to the Federal Government for program income earned after the end of the period of performance.
( c ) *Award terms and conditions.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include as Section F of FMS Article VII the wording for that section that is provided in appendix G to this part. That wording specifies that recipients are not accountable to the Federal Government for program income earned after the end of the performance period. If an exception is warranted for an individual award, the exception is properly addressed at the time of award in the award-specific terms and conditions.