alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8019

JOHN WAYNE CAUDLE, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00235-MHL) Submitted: May 14, 2007 Decided: June 12, 2007 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wayne Caudle, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: John Wayne Caudle seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order *denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Caudle has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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
# L_2020079EN.01001201.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 79/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 79/12

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1685 of 4 October 2019 designating a European Union Reference Centre for Animal Welfare for poultry and other small farmed animals

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 258 of 9 October 2019
  )

On page 11, in recital 3, and on page 12, in Article 1(1):

for:

‘Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation (France)’,

read:

‘Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail (France)’.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ACG
HOLDINGS, INC.'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                               0000856710
<NAME>                                              ACG HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       69,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                        2,549
<INVENTORY>                                         10,417
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    79,671
<PP&E>                                              277,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                      140,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      297,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               82,113
<BONDS>                                             185,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            1
<OTHER-SE>                                          (107,684)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        297,857
<SALES>                                             410,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    410,032
<CGS>                                               340,664
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       340,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    225
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     13,165
<INCOME-TAX>                                        1,649
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 11,516
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                        11,516
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 87 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 87

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              regarding citizenship in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 1995

 Mr. Stockman (for himself, Mr. Jones, Mr. Funderburk, Mrs. Chenoweth, 
 Mr. Burton of Indiana, and Mr. Salmon) introduced the following joint 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
              regarding citizenship in the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1. Citizens of the United States shall only be persons 
born to a parent who is a citizen of the United States, persons born 
within the United States and to a parent who was lawfully present in 
and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of 
that parent's entry into the United States, and all persons naturalized 
according to the laws of the United States.
    ``Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall require either the 
Congress or the States to provide payments or services to any person 
who is not a citizen of the United States.
    ``Section 3. No person shall become a naturalized citizen of the 
United States who is not conversant in the English language, except for 
persons under the age of five, and who has not sworn allegiance to the 
United States over and above allegiance to any other polity.
    ``Section 4. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several 
States according to their respective numbers, counting only the number 
of citizens of each State.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 50.6 Ascertainment of quantity mined.

Each person engaged in hydraulic mining operations within the scope of the tax shall make or cause to be made appropriate surveys of the premises on which such hydraulic mining operations are conducted for the purpose of determining the cubic yardage mined from the natural bank. Such surveys shall be made at the beginning and end of hydraulic mining operations in each taxable year by a licensed engineer or other qualified agency having prior approval of the California Debris Commission, and shall conform to requirements prescribed by the California Debris Commission.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,327,033
<SECURITIES>                                    55,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  620,547
<ALLOWANCES>                                    82,106
<INVENTORY>                                    519,749
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,080,966
<PP&E>                                         425,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                 323,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,965,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,377,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                         1,752
<OTHER-SE>                                     404,725
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,965,508
<SALES>                                      1,851,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,851,685
<CGS>                                        1,161,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,730,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (1,273,965)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             253,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,020,375)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,020,375)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                315,828
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   704,547
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.05)


</TABLE>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JESSE JAMES ABBOTT, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0164 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR201501152

The Honorable Richard D. Lambert, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Mohave County Attorney’s Office, Kingman

By Matthew J. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

The Stavris Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Scottsdale

By Alison Stavris

Counsel for Petitioner

FILED 10-31-2019
STATE v. ABBOTT

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Judge James B. Morse Jr., and Judge Diane 

M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Jesse Abbott seeks review of the superior court’s order 

dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s first PCR

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
#### § 53.4961-1 Abatement of second tier taxes for correction within correction period.

If any taxable event is corrected during the correction period for the event, then any second tier tax imposed with respect to the event shall not be assessed. If the tax has been assessed, it shall be abated. If the tax has been collected, it shall be credited or refunded as an overpayment. For purposes of this section, the tax imposed includes interest, additions to the tax and additional amounts. For definitions of the terms *second tier tax, taxable event, correct,* and *correction period,* see § 53.4963-1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                             
                                                                   
<ARTICLE>      5
       

<S>                                             <C>
                   <PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
                   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JUN-30-1999
                   <PERIOD-START>                 OCT-01-1998
                   <PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
                   <CASH>                           (240,746)
                   <SECURITIES>                            0
                   <RECEIVABLES>                     394,367
                   <ALLOWANCES>                      190,000
                   <INVENTORY>                       109,280
                   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                  866,596
                   <PP&E>                            504,368
                   <DEPRECIATION>                     80,590
                   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,913,885
                   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           2,188,243
                   <BONDS>                                 0
                   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
                   <PREFERRED>                             0
                   <COMMON>                           22,875
                   <OTHER-SE>                       (187,233)
                   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,913,885
                   <SALES>                           664,665
                   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                  664,665
                   <CGS>                             326,536
                   <TOTAL-COSTS>                     326,536
                   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                  733,063
                   <LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
                   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  3,451
                   <INCOME-PRETAX>                   398,405
                   <INCOME-TAX>                            0
                   <INCOME-CONTINUING>              (398,405)
                   <DISCONTINUED>                          0
                   <EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
                   <CHANGES>                               0
                   <NET-INCOME>                     (398,405)
                   <EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.12)
                   <EPS-DILUTED>                           0


        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rickie Caldwell, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 639]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered May 26, 2004, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the Supreme Court’s *Sandoval*ruling (see *People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is without merit. The nature and extent of cross-examination are subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge *(id.*at 374). Here, the court struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant’s prior crimes on the issue of his credibility and the possible prejudice to the defendant *(see People v Springer,*13 AD3d 657, 658 [2004]). The defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the prejudicial effect of the evidence of his prior convictions so outweighed the probative worth of that evidence that its exclusion was warranted *(see People v Sandoval, supra*at 378; *People v Brooks,*104 AD2d 999 [1984]).

The fact that one of the defendant’s convictions was more than 10 years old did not, in and of itself, require preclusion of that conviction for impeachment purposes *(see People v Springer, supra).*The convictions were probative of both the defendant’s willingness to place his interests above those of society, and of the defendant’s honesty and credibility *(see People v Turner,*239 AD2d 447, 447-448 [1997]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, are without merit. Adams, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                             625
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                       740
<INVENTORY>                                     18,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,905
<PP&E>                                          65,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,878
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,387
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,912
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,001
<SALES>                                         27,384
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,384
<CGS>                                           22,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,283
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,085)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    828
<INCOME-TAX>                                       278
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                550
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       550
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 73

To amend Senate Resolution 62, agreed to February 28, 1991 (102d

Congress).

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 5), 1993

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To amend Senate Resolution 62, agreed to February 28,

1991 (102d Congress).

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. TRAINING EXPENSES.

3 Section 21(c) of Senate Resolution 62, agreed to Feb4 ruary 28, 1991 (102d Congress), is amended by deleting

5 the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof

6 a comma and the following: ‘‘and not to exceed $3,000

7 may be expended for the training of professional staff of

8 such committee (under procedures specified by section

9 202(j) of such Act).’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WA S H ING TON , D . C . 20460

Ms. Amy M . Butler Tampa Electric Company 702 N . Franklin St. Tampa, Florida 33602 Dear Ms. Butler : 

### AUG 7 2013
OFFICE OF WATER

T he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received ·your request for plant- specific information, including estimated compliance costs and pollutant removals, related to the propo s ed revisions to the Effluent L imitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam E lectric Power Generating Po int Source Category (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ - OW-2009-0819). In response to your request, please find enclosed a disc containing one file and six attachments for each p lant for which costs/removals are being provided. The file and attachments present the input v alues and the costs and pollutant removals for the requested plants, as well as additional information regarding EPA's estimation of these values . The EPA is providing costs and pollutant removals for the following p lants: • Big Bend S tation (06377); and • Polk Power Station (00270). The information provided in the enclosed disc may contain information that was claimed by your company's plants as confidential business informat ion (CBI) in response to the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines . The EPA is not responsibl e for the releas e of this CBI if you or others in your company provide these attachments to other parties. If you have any questions regarding these es timates, please contact me at (202) 566-1755 or alicea.jezebele@epa.gov. Thank you for your interest in the steam electric effluent guidelines rulemaking process . Sincerely, Jezebele Alicea Virella Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T) Enclo s ures

I n terne t Add r ess ( U R L) • h ttp ://www . epa . gov Re c yc l ed/ Re c yclab l e • P rin ted wi th Vegeta bl e O il Based I n ks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
www.gpo.gov

### §286e–9. Stabilization programs

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director on the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund to initiate a wide consultation with the managing director of the Fund and other member country executive directors with regard to encouraging the staff of the Fund to formulate stabilization programs which, to the maximum feasible extent, foster a broader base of productive investment and employment, especially in those productive activities which are designed to meet basic human needs.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §30, as added Pub. L. 95–435, §4, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1052; amended Pub. L. 96–389, §2(b), Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1553; Pub. L. 101–240, title V, §541(d)(1), (f)(2), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2518, 2519.)

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–240 struck out subsec. (a) designation and struck out subsec. (b) which read as follows: “In order to gain a better understanding of the social, political and economic impact of the Fund's stabilization programs on borrowing countries, especially as it relates to the poor majority within those countries, the United States Governor of the Fund shall prepare and submit, not later than 180 days after the close of each calendar year, a report to the Congress. Such report shall evaluate, to the maximum extent feasible, with respect to countries to which loans are made during each year, the effects of policies of those countries which result from the standby agreements on basic human needs in such countries.”

1980—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–389, §2(b)(1), struck out “entered into pursuant to loans from the Supplementary Financing Facility” after “stabilization programs”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–389, §2(b)(2), (3), struck out “entered into pursuant to loans from the Supplementary Financing Facility” after “stabilization programs” and “by the Supplementary Financing Facility” after “loans are made”.

#### Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–389 effective Oct. 7, 1980, see section 12 of Pub. L. 96–389, set out as an Effective Date note under section 286s of this title.