alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50018 Summary Calendar

GARY SCHMUECKLE,
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus
R.D. MILES, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-01-CV-328-JN

-------------------- August 16, 2002
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gary Schmueckle, federal prisoner # 72553-080, appeals

the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for
failing to show that he was entitled to bring the action under the
savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Schmueckle acknowledges that

in order to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 he must demonstrate that

28 U.S.C. § 2255 is an inadequate or ineffective rem edy. He

argues, however, that he need not establish that his claims areNo. 02-50018 -2-
based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision.
Rather, Schmueckle contends that the inadequacy or ineffectiveness

of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 can be demonstrated by showing “cause and
actual prejudice” or “actual innocence.”

Schmueckle correctly acknowledges that in order to
proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 he must show that his remedy under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 woul d be inadequate or ineffective to test the
legality of his detention. S ee Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243

F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001). However, in order to make that
showing, Reyes-Requena requires that a petitioner demonstrate that
his claims are “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court
decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a
nonexistent offense” and that the claims were “foreclosed by
circuit law at the time when the claim[s] should have been raised

in [his] trial, appeal, or first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion." I d. at

904. Schmueckle has failed to satisfy the first prong of the

Reyes-Requena test. Accordingly, the district court did not err in
determining tha t Schmueckle could not bring his claims under the
savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

AFFIRMED

.
§ 58.90 Animal care. ( a ) There shall be standard operating procedures for the housing, feeding, handling, and care of animals.
( b ) All newly received animals from outside sources shall be isolated and their health status shall be evaluated in accordance with acceptable veterinary medical practice.
( c ) At the initiation of a nonclinical laboratory study, animals shall be free of any disease or condition that might interfere with the purpose or conduct of the study. If, during the course of the study, the animals contract such a disease or condition, the diseased animals shall be isolated, if necessary. These animals may be treated for disease or signs of disease provided that such treatment does not interfere with the study. The diagnosis, authorizations of treatment, description of treatment, and each date of treatment shall be documented and shall be retained.
( d ) Warm-blooded animals, excluding suckling rodents, used in laboratory procedures that require manipulations and observations over an extended period of time or in studies that require the animals to be removed from and returned to their home cages for any reason (e.g., cage cleaning, treatment, etc.), shall receive appropriate identification. All information needed to specifically identify each animal within an animal-housing unit shall appear on the outside of that unit.
( e ) Animals of different species shall be housed in separate rooms when necessary. Animals of the same species, but used in different studies, should not ordinarily be housed in the same room when inadvertent exposure to control or test articles or animal mixup could affect the outcome of either study. If such mixed housing is necessary, adequate differentiation by space and identification shall be made.
( f ) Animal cages, racks and accessory equipment shall be cleaned and sanitized at appropriate intervals.
( g ) Feed and water used for the animals shall be analyzed periodically to ensure that contaminants known to be capable of interfering with the study and reasonably expected to be present in such feed or water are not present at levels above those specified in the protocol. Documentation of such analyses shall be maintained as raw data.
( h ) Bedding used in animal cages or pens shall not interfere with the purpose or conduct of the study and shall be changed as often as necessary to keep the animals dry and clean.
( i ) If any pest control materials are used, the use shall be documented. Cleaning and pest control materials that interfere with the study shall not be used.
[43 FR 60013, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 33780, Sept. 4, 1987; 54 FR 15924, Apr. 20, 1989; 56 FR 32088, July 15, 1991; 67 FR 9585, Mar. 4, 2002]
MEMORANDUM 

## FEB 2 6 2015

SUBJECT: New York Attainment Status forthe Coarse Particle (PMIO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) FROM: Richard Ruvo 

## V i /1'/}

Chief 

### /

~tW tu{ f~ Air Programs Branch TO: John Filippelli

Director Clean Air and Sustainability Division

We have requested that the Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) initiate aFederal Register rulemaking action to make technical amendments and clarify that the 40 CFR Part 81 Tables forNew York erroneously listNew York County as "nonattainment" forthe PMIO NAAQS, first promulgated in 1987. New York County was designated as nonattainment forthe PMIO NAAQS on December 21, 1993. At the time ofthis designation, the PMIO NAAQS included an annual standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter (u/rrr') calculated as an annual arithmetic mean averaged over three years, as well as a 24-hour standard of 150 u/rrr', not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over athree year period. New York County was designated as nonattainment for the annual NAAQS only; however, the Part 81 table does not make a distinction or specify which form ofthe standard the nonattainment designation applied to. The Madison Avenue monitor inNew York County (AQS Site ID 36-061-0077) recorded violations ofthe annual PMIO

NAAQS and was the basis forthe county's nonattainment designation forthis NAAQS. This monitor continued to serve as the county's design value monitor until 1998; atthis time the monitor underwent modifications that made itno longer valid for comparison to the NAAQS, i.e., itno longer met the siting criteria for aFederal Reference Method (FRM) monitor. As aresult, decisions regarding PMIOair quality since 1998 have been informed upon ambient air quality data collected at other FRM or Federal Equivalent Method monitoring sites inNew York County, including the Post Office site (AQS ID 36-061-0062). Notably, a clean data determination forthe PMIO

NAAQS was finalized inthe Federal Register on December 2,2013. This clean data determination applied to both forms ofthe PMIO NAAQS forNew York County even though the annual PMIO

NAAQS was revoked on October 17,2006. It should be noted that none ofthe monitors inNew York County have recorded violations ofthe annual PMIO NAAQS since 1998, and no violations ofthe 24-hour PMIO NAAQS have ever been recorded inthe county. Attached are documents supporting the factual history that New York County was designated as nonattainment for the annual PMIO NAAQS only and, as aresult, the Part 81 Table for the state should be amended to reflect these facts instead ofmemorializing New York County as nonattainment for an unspecified form ofthe PMIO NAAQS. Attachments

cc: Rhea Jones, OAQPS
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION AS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a),**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Arthur L. Freeman, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of 1st Independence Financial Group, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respect the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

 

(b) [omitted inaccordance with SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and****

 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and ****

 

5. The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process summarize and reportfinancial information; and 

 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 29, 2004

/s/ Arthur L. Freeman

Arthur L. Freeman

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE v. THE UNITED STATES.

[42 C. Cls. R., 6; 214 U. S. R., 33.]

*On the claimants Appeal.*

The claimant, a State bank, is converted into a National bank in June, 1865. At various times subsequent to July 1, 1887, its outstanding circulation is less than 5 per cent of its chartered *601capital, but it is required to pay the tax on such outstanding circulation. The suit is to recover back the duties so paid.

The court below decides:

I.The banking and'internal-revenue acts of 25th February, 1SC3; 3d March, 1863; 3d June, 1864; 30th June, 1S64; 3d March, 1865; 13th July, 1866; 14th March, 1900; and Revised Statutes,- sections 3408, 3410, 3411, 3416, 3417, and 5214 considered and interpreted.

II.The statutory provisions embodied in the Revised Statutes (sections 3410, 3411, 3417), which declare that whenever the outstanding circulation of any bank does not exceed 5 per cent of its capital " *said circulation shall he free from taxation,’''*does not extend to national banks. It was intended only as an inducement to state banks to be converted into national banks by exempting from taxation all their circulating medium below 5 per cent of their capital, issued and emitted under state organization.'

III. The purpose of the semiannual tax of 2 per cent on the amount

of the circulating notes of a national bank was not revenue, but to reimburse the Treasury for expenses incurred in printing the notes and all other expenses. The purpose of the tax on the state banks was revenue, coupled with the policy of ultimately compelling the retirement of state-bank notes.

IV. AVlien the language of a statute is free from ambiguity its words

shall be given their usually accepted meaning; but where a general word follows particular and specific words of the same nature its meaning shall be restricted to the same genus as the particular words.

V.Sections 8410 and 3411 of the Revised Statutes, as printed, are misleading. They should be construed together as one sentence, connected by the conjunction “ *and,”*as in the original acts.

VI."When in doubt as to the scope of an act, courts may go beyond it to ascertain the legislative intent. The object to be accomplished at the time of its enactment is of paramount importance in giving effect to an act.

VII.In the construction of the Revised Statutes courts can not refer to the antecedent legislation embodied therein to create a doubt, but they can to solve -one.

The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May *17,*1909.
<PAGE>   1
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                              Washington, DC 20549

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

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


      Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): September 24, 1997


                           MIDCOM Communications Inc.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


                                   Washington
         (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)


<TABLE>
 <S>                                       <C>
         000-26118                                     91-1438806
         ---------                                     ----------
 (Commission File Number)                  (I.R.S Employer Identification No.)
</TABLE>

                           26899 Northwestern Highway
                                   Suite 120
                           Southfield, Michigan 48034
                   ------------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


                                 (248) 304-1780
                                 --------------
              (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)






<PAGE>   2
Item 5.  Other Events

          On September 2, 1997 MIDCOM Communications Inc. (the "Company") issued
a press release announcing the appointment of the Company's new Chief Financial
Officer. The text of that press release is included with this report as Exhibit
99.1.


Item 7.  Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.

         (c)  Exhibits

         99.1     Press release dated September 2, 1997.



                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                        MIDCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC.


       Dated: September 24, 1997            By: /s/ Steven P. Goldman
                                            ---------------------
                                            Steven P. Goldman
                                            Vice President and General Counsel



<PAGE>   3
                          MIDCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC.

                                EXHIBIT INDEX


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        <S>     <C>
        99.1    Press release dated September 2, 1997.
</TABLE>
| 1.   | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Crimson Exploration Inc.; |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4.   | The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5.   | The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | May 11, 2010                          |   |
|-------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|        | /s/ Allan D. Keel                     |   |
| Name:       | Allan D. Keel                         |   |
| Title:      | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7059** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TITO DWAYNE TITUS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Cameron McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00585

- CMC

- 1; 3:11

- cv - 02307

- CMC )

Submitted : August 2 2 , 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tito Dwayne Titus, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tito Dwayne Titus seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 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) (200 6 ). A certi ficate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that re asonable 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 relie f 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 revie wed the record and conclude that Titus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in t he materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 72 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to maintain or collect information 

that can be used to identify any individual to whom a COVID–19 

vaccine is administered, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to maintain or collect 

information that can be used to identify any individual 

to whom a COVID–19 vaccine is administered, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING MAINTENANCE OR COLLECTION 

4 OF INFORMATION IDENTIFYING COVID–19 

5 VACCINE RECIPIENTS. 

6 No funds may be obligated or expended by the Fed7 eral Government, including the Centers for Disease Con8 trol and Prevention, to maintain a database of, or collect, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 72 IH

1 information that can be used to identify an individual to 

2 whom is administered a vaccine that is intended to pre3 vent, mitigate, or treat the virus that causes COVID–19. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 10(t)
 
                     The Guarantee Life Companies Inc. and
                       Guarantee Life Insurance Company
                           Executive Severance Plan

                                Second Revised
                                   Exhibit A

                                 PARTICIPANTS
                                        
Tier I

     Chief Executive Officer

Tier II

     Senior Vice President - Strategic Planning
     Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
     Senior Vice President and Actuary - Employee Benefits Division
     Senior Vice President - Information Systems and Services
     Senior Vice President - Employee Benefits Division Operations
     Executive Vice President - Individual Division
     Senior Vice President - Employee Benefits Division Marketing
     Senior Vice President - Employee Benefits Division - Finance
     Senior Vice President - Human Resources and Operation Services
     Senior Vice President - Strategic Initiative and Group Special Markets
     Senior Vice President - Individual Insurance Services
     Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

Tier III

     Vice President - Investor Relations

*THERE ARE NO POSITIONS THAT QUALIFY FOR TIER III AT THIS TIME.