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

**No. 14**  **- 7482** 

KEVIN A. REILLY , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. LARRY CARTLEDGE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 0:12

- cv - 03503

- SB )

Submitted : January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kevin A. Reilly, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kevin A. Reilly seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a con stitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional clai ms is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reilly has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,553,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,134,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,414,240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,479,467
<PP&E>                                       4,351,021
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,803,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,210,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,750,513
<BONDS>                                      1,563,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       162,700
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,163,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,210,320
<SALES>                                     11,068,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,068,868
<CGS>                                        6,788,793
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,788,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,276,522
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             231,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (251,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (251,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (251,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
HomeBureaus & Offices > Office of the Chief of Protocol...Major Events Division

# Major Events Division

## 				Major Events Division			

					The primary mission of the Major Events (ME) Division is to logistically support Presidential, Vice Presidential, and Secretary of State -hosted major international multilateral summits, ministerials, peace talks, and other international conferences held both in the United States and abroad. Major Events is responsible for creating, staffing, and executing the foundational infrastructure and logistics platform upon which these major events take place.  When the President, Vice President, or Secretary of State announces that the United States will host a major international meeting such as a summit, ministerial or conference, the Assistant Chief of Protocol for Major Events assigns an experienced planning team and manages the coordination of event details both within the Protocol Office and with stakeholders within the Department. For large summits, the division also works with the host city of a summit along with the White House and other agencies in their coordination efforts.  The Major Events Division staff have a long history of planning large-scale events for the White House and Department of State and are uniquely trained to manage these specialized requirements. No other office in the U.S. government has the same capabilities, staff preparedness, and support infrastructure to build what is necessary to host a large-scale diplomatic event for the federal government. Key logistical elements the Major Events team executes for summits and ministerials are: •	Inter and Intra-Agency Meeting and Communications Coordination •	Production Contract Management  •	Event Budget Management •	Press Logistics Management•	Simultaneous Interpretation Management •	Transportation Management•	Airport Operations Management •	Credentials Management •	Website and Event App Management•	Graphics Design•	Hotel Accommodations Coordination•	City Host Committee Coordination•	Security Liaison  •	Event Execution. In addition to Major Events, the Division also manages the Department’s Conference Tracker and Approval System (CTAS) for registration and approval of all conferences hosted by the Department’s bureaus or posts abroad. CTAS is both a regulation of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a legal mandate. The Division’s CTAS administrators are responsible for generating annual reports to the OMB and the Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the Department’s conference spending. The Division manages the conference database and identifies those conferences that warrant review and Department approval. It also advises Department conference organizers on registration and reporting policies, designs and coordinates the technical elements of the registration site with its IT development team, manages the data collected, and updates the Department’s Comptroller on conference spending.   If you would like more information on what we do, please send an email to MajorEventsDivision@State.Gov.				

Back to Top
INL CAPABILITY 

Technology Roadmapping,  Maturity, and Deployment 

 lanning and decision-making represent important challenges in the realm of technology development programs.  Whether projects involve incremental improvement or technology breakthrough, there typically are significant uncertainties and interrelationships which complicate the environment of competing priorities and limited 

funding.  Technology Roadmaps are used to identify precise program and project objectives and requirements, create a consensus vision of R&D needs, focus R&D resources, facilitate informed decision making, provide a structured defensible decision program and project plan, accelerate application of new technologies, expedite new systems deployment, and minimize project costs and schedules.  Building on core roadmapping principles that have guided Fortune 500 companies like Intel and Motorola, systems engineers at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) have developed a specialized planning and technology roadmapping capability that provides the rigor and understanding needed for decision-makers to focus on critical uncertainties and make informed decisions.  Further, the INL’s advanced technology roadmapping process provides a means to measure the relative merit of technologies, accelerate application of new technologies, minimize project costs and schedules, facilitate informed decision-making, and provide a defensible argument for acquisition choices.  In short, the INL technology roadmapping capability allows planning; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E); and acquisition teams to make cost-effective technology decisions in the face of program complexities. 

Technical Contacts  

Ron Klingler (208) 526-0183 ron.klingler@inl.gov  Lori Braase (208) 526-7763 lori.braase@inl.gov  Robert Caliva (208) 526-4653 robert.caliva@inl.gov  John Collins (208) 526-3372 john.collins@inl.gov  Web Page http://www.inl.gov/syseng  

P 

“The INL's roadmapping process gave us the ability to look forward in our technology development and selection processes in a very deliberate manner.  It has provided insight into risk areas and has allowed us to explore requirement gaps that will help us prioritize the activities necessary to develop reasoned decisions with a technical basis that we could not previously articulate.”   

– Colonel Donald Kotchman Deputy Program Executive Officer  U.S. Army Ground Combat Systems
## Maryla nd Department of the Environment Notice of Public Hearing on Air Quality Plan
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) will hold a Public Hearing on a State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing the 8-hour Ozone Standard for Cecil County, Maryland. The Philadelphia Nonattainment Area (Philadelphia

- Wilmington

- Atlantic City, PA

- DE

- MD

- NJ ozone nonattainment region) , which includes Cecil County, Maryland, has been designated nonattainment under the 8-Hour Ozone standard. The Hearing will be held on: 

### May 24th at 6:00 PM at the Cecil County Health Department, 401 Bow Street, Elkton, Maryland 21921 The Public Hearing will be held as required by federal law (Clean Air Act at 42 U.S.c. 7410 (a) and 40 CFR 51.102). After consideration of comments received , the plan will be finalized and submitted to the United State Environmental Protection Agency. The proposed plan is titled the 

### Cecil County, Maryland 8-hour Ozone State Implementation Plan and Base Year Inv entory. The plan consists of a reasonable further progress plan, an attainment demonstration, a reasonably available control measure analysis , contingency plans, and mobile source emission budgets. This plan also contains the base year 2002 emissions inventory, which serves as the basis for all planning activities related to the 8-hour ozone standard for Cecil County, Maryland. The SIP document has been made available on the Maryland Department of the Environment's website at http ://www .mde. state .md
.u s/Pro grams/AirPro grams/air planning/index. asp Note: the public library systems in the region can be used for Internet access to view the document. Copies of the document can be viewed at: 1. Maryland Department of the Environment Office , Air and Radiation Management Administration, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730, Baltimore , Maryland

- Contact: Andrew Heltibridle or Brian Hug. Comments may be presented at the hearing , mailed , emailed , or faxed to Brian J. Hug, Maryland Department of the Environment, Air and Radiation Management Administration, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, MD, 21230, Fax # 410-537-4223, bhug @ mde.state.md.us to be received before close of business 

### May 24, 2007. A hearing impaired person may request that an interpreter be present at the hearing by notifying MDE five (5) business days before the hearing. TTY via Maryland Relay for the hearing impaired is (410) 537- 4396. For more information contact Andrew Heltibridle , Natural Resource Planner, at (410) 537-3245 (Toll free in Maryland call (800) 633-6101 ext. 3245) or AHeltibridle @ mde
. state.md.us.
§ 515.510 Payments to the United States, States and political subdivisions. ( a ) The payment from any blocked account to the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof or to any State, territory, district, county, municipality or other political subdivision in the United States, of customs duties, taxes, and fees payable thereto by the owner of such blocked account is hereby authorized.
( b ) This section also authorizes transactions incident to the payment of customs duties, taxes, and fees from blocked accounts, such as the levying of assessments, the creation and enforcement of liens, and the sale of blocked property in satisfaction of liens for customs duties, taxes, and fees.
#### George WYATT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Rickey D. Wyatt, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-5025.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 7, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, BRYSON and DYK, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION

DYK, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The United States moves to dismiss George Wyatt’s appeal as untimely. Wyatt has not responded. Wyatt submits a “motion for oral argument” and a motion for various forms of relief. The United States opposes. Wyatt submits a motion for “fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act,” and a “motion and application for consideration,” which we construe as a motion to for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

An appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims must be filed within 60 days of the entry of judgment. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The certified list reflects that the judgment appealed from was entered by the Court of Federal Claims on July 27, 1999, and that the notice of appeal was filed on November 7, 2000, well after the expiration of the 60-day period. Because the time limit for filing a notice of appeal may not be waived, this appeal must be dismissed. *See Sofarelli Assoc., Inc. v. United States,*716 F.2d 1395 (Fed.Cir.1983); *Placeway Const. Corp. v. United States,*713 F.2d 726, 728 (Fed.Cir.1983).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The United States’ motion to dismiss is granted.

(2) Wyatt’s motions are denied.

(3) Wyatt’s pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is moot.

(4) Each side shall bear its own costs.
# iui-rt ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA #14-13-00650-CR STYLE: Eric Jarrod Williams v The State ofTexas COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed 

### DATE: September23. 2014 Publish: No 

### OFFENSE: Indecency with a Child COUNTY: Orange ,th 

### TRIAL COURT: 128in District Court TC CASE #:A-080508-R

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS
STYLE: Eric Jarrod Williams v The State ofTexas CCA# 

# PRO se Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

## DATE: Q31N124XT 

# kM JUDGE: 

### rM IMJUMCCADisposition: DATE: 

### JUDGE:. SIGNED: PUBLISH: 

# Ifeft.-/?

PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: 

### JUDGE: ELECTRONIC RECORD
NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0042n .06 Fi led : Jan uar

y 14, 2008 06- 2527 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
LAU RI E C . KU TA, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORA T ION, Defendant -A ppel lee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: DAUGHT REY, GILMAN, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
PERC UR IAM

. Pl ain ti ff Laur ie Ku ta broug ht t his acti on for employ ment dis cr imi nati on and re tal iat ion agai nstdefendant General Mo tors C or porati on, a ll eg ing
v iolation of

Title VII of

t he Civ il Rights Act of

196 4, 42 U.S.C. § 200 0(e), an d of Michig an’s Elliott-La rsen Civil R ig h t s A ct, MCL § 37.2 101 . Th e district court granted summ ary j ud g me ntt o Ge ne ral M ot ors a fte r d et er mi ni ng t ha t Ku ta h ad fai l ed t o es ta bl i s h a pr i ma facie cas e of g ender

di sc ri minat io n or to sh ow thatthe company ’s l eg it imat e nondis cr imi nator

y re ason for te rmi nati ng her empl oy ment was pretextual and, furth er , t hat s he had fail ed to sa ti sfyt he c ausat ion prong of the p ri ma facie ca se neces sar y to sus tai n a re t a li a t io n cl a im u n d e r e it h e r fe d e ra l o r s t a t e la w.06-2527

Kuta v. General Motors Corporation

- 2 - Hav ing had the b enefit of oral arg ument, and hav ing st udi ed th e record on appeal and t he bri efs of

the par ti es, w e are notpersuade d tha t t he di str ict c our t er re d i n di smi ss ing the c omplai nt. Beca use the re asons w hy jud g ment shoul d be ent ered for the d efendant have bee n f ully

articulate d by the district court, th e issuan ce of a deta iled op inion b y

this court would be duplicat iv e and w ould serv e no usef ul purp ose. Accordingly , w e AFFIRM the jud g ment of t he dis tr ict cour t upon the re asoni ng set out by that cour t in it s o p ini on g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment t o the defendant, date d October 16, 2006.
#### § 555.408 Charitable contributions.

Unless specifically authorized by OFAC pursuant to this part, no charitable contribution of funds, goods, services, or technology, including contributions to relieve human suffering, such as food, clothing, or medicine, may be made by, to, or for the benefit of, or received from, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 555.201. For the purposes of this part, a contribution is made by, to, or for the benefit of, or received from, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 555.201 if made by, to, or in the name of, or received from or in the name of, such a person; if made by, to, or in the name of, or received from or in the name of, an entity or individual acting for or on behalf of, or owned or controlled by, such a person; or if made in an attempt to violate, to evade, or to avoid the bar on the provision of contributions by, to, or for the benefit of such a person, or the receipt of contributions from such a person.
g

pn —- sat GULF OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES BATHYMETRIC MAP ALBATROSS BANK
a _

_ = .
= ; ; ’

* Pras ae z a ile : : _ — A a . -

A potato ht TR j ;

ssigumatinds eatee aitausien Pobbened at Winhegren, DC ALBATROSS BANK
= a = US. DEPAREMENT OF COMMERCE m4

1} MADONAL OCEANIC Ast ATMOHEHERE ARWINESPAKTION ¥ NOS NO 58
= : == MATIONAL OCLAM SERVICE
= —___— var

SAleewknNE CONTOUR HeerEVaRS U7 METERS 30.200 METER DEFT )
SUPREOENTED BY 5 HETER AUTERVALS. TENCE $6 AMSTERS |) maniabind |
DEPTH SMPLEMWRNAD WY 10 AFTER atEvaLS /

DAT yak pay (Cee ac wate

i \ {
i___ Teanewtm sQHCATON MOWTETICN { .
Sete 19.000 i 1 = F = a
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 25, 2010 

p0517 

Order 

 

May 25, 2010 

140526-7 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140526-7 

 COA: 285956; 285957 

Wayne CC: 07-021541-FC; 

ISIAH MEAD, 07-021542-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 HATHAWAY, J., not participating. Justice Hathaway recuses herself and will not 

participate in this case as she was the presiding trial court judge. See MCR 2.003(B).
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2634

To allow persons to carry concealed firearms in every State if they have

been issued a license to do so by any State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 14, 1995

Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Mr. HANCOCK, and Mr. HOSTETTLER) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To allow persons to carry concealed firearms in every State

if they have been issued a license to do so by any State.

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

3 SECTION 1. RECIPROCITY OF STATE LICENSES TO CARRY

4 CONCEALED FIREARMS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United

6 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A

7 the following:

8 ‘‘§ 926B. Interstate carrying of concealed firearms

9 ‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any

10 State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not
2

•HR 2634 IH

1 prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting,

2 shipping, or receiving a firearm and who is carrying a

3 valid license which is issued pursuant to the law of any

4 State and which permits the person to carry a concealed

5 firearm (other than a machinegun or destructive device)

6 shall be entitled to carry in any State a concealed firearm

7 (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has

8 been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign com9 merce, in accordance with the terms of the license.’’.

10 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

11 for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item

12 relating to section 926A the following:

‘‘926B. Interstate carrying of concealed firearms.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


 


SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT


 


This Supplemental Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of September 2, 2012, by and between the
person whose name(s) appear(s) at the signature page of this agreement (the “Investor”) and China Shouguan Mining Corporation,
a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), with an address of Room 3207, New World Centre, 6009 Yitian Road, Futian District,
Shenzhen, PR China;


 


WHEREAS, the parties signed the Subscription Agreement on August 3, 2012 (the “Subscription Agreement”)
whereby the Company is desirous of raising capital through the sale of 10,000,000 shares (the “Shares”) of its authorized
but un-issued common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”) for $0.5 per share and upon the other terms
and conditions set forth therein; and


 


WHEREAS, the Investor is desires to purchase the Shares upon the terms and conditions set forth therein;


 


NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:


 


SECTION 2


 


2.1 Closing.


 


This section is amended in the sense that the closing of the present transaction shall
extend for another 30 days from the date of the signing of this Agreement, whereby the Investor shall deliver a cheque for the
sum of the Amount of Investment to the Company and the Company shall within 30 days thereafter deliver the certificate(s) for the
Shares to the Investor.


 


The other content of the Subscription Agreement remained unchanged. 


 


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Agreement on the September
2, 2012.


 


 SHENG LONG ENTERPRISES LIMITED


 /s/


(sd.)


Dated: September 2, 2012


 


 


CHINA SHOUGUAN MINING CORPORATION


  


  /s/ Zhang Feize


(sd.) Zhang Feize, President


Dated: September 2, 2012