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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSEPH R. BEILHARZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:09-cr-00105-LMB-1; 1:11-cv01222-LMB)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph R. Beilharz, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph R. Beilharz seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing with 

prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal as untimely and 

duplicative.

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Where, as here, the United 

States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 

60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on June 12, 2012. The notice 

of appeal was filed no earlier than March 28, 2019, and is duplicative of a prior appeal of 

the same order. United States v. Beilharz, 488 F. App’x 732 (4th Cir. 2012) (No. 12-

7254) (denying certificate of appealability and dismissing appeal). Because Beilharz 

failed to file the notice of appeal within the applicable appeal period, and the appeal itself 

is duplicative, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 482.76 Condition of participation: Pediatric Transplants. A transplant center that seeks Medicare approval to provide transplantation services to pediatric patients must submit to CMS a request specifically for Medicare approval to perform pediatric transplants using the procedures described at § 488.61 of this chapter. ( a ) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, a center requesting Medicare approval to perform pediatric transplants must meet all the conditions of participation at §§ 482.72 through 482.74 and §§ 482.80 through 482.104 with respect to its pediatric patients.
( b ) A center that performs 50 percent or more of its transplants in a 12-month period on adult patients must be approved to perform adult transplants in order to be approved to perform pediatric transplants. ( 1 ) Loss of Medicare approval to perform adult transplants, whether voluntary or involuntary, will result in loss of the center's approval to perform pediatric transplants.
( 2 ) Loss of Medicare approval to perform pediatric transplants, whether voluntary or involuntary, may trigger a review of the center's Medicare approval to perform adult transplants.
( c ) A center that performs 50 percent or more of its transplants in a 12-month period on pediatric patients must be approved to perform pediatric transplants in order to be approved to perform adult transplants. ( 1 ) Loss of Medicare approval to perform pediatric transplants, whether voluntary or involuntary, will result in loss of the center's approval to perform adult transplants.
( 2 ) Loss of Medicare approval to perform adult transplants, whether voluntary or involuntary, may trigger a review of the center's Medicare approval to perform pediatric transplants.
( 3 ) A center that performs 50 percent or more of its transplants on pediatric patients in a 12-month period is not required to meet the clinical experience requirements prior to its request for approval as a pediatric transplant center.
( d ) Instead of meeting all conditions of participation at §§ 482.72 through 482.74 and §§ 482.80 through 482.104, a heart transplant center that wishes to provide transplantation services to pediatric heart patients may be approved to perform pediatric heart transplants by meeting the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 criteria in section 4009(b) (Pub. L. 100-203), as follows: ( 1 ) The center's pediatric transplant program must be operated jointly by the hospital and another facility that is Medicare-approved;
( 2 ) The unified program shares the same transplant surgeons and quality improvement program (including oversight committee, patient protocol, and patient selection criteria); and
( 3 ) The center demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that it is able to provide the specialized facilities, services, and personnel that are required by pediatric heart transplant patients.
October 15, 2015

Mr. Lance Houston, J.D., LL.M.

Lance Houston Photography, Inc.

709 Maple Street, #2

Fall River, MA 02720

Dear Mr. Houston:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.109, 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),

91.409(a)(1) & (a) (2), and 91.417(a) & (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 

30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 19, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Lance Houston 

Photography, Inc. filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−3202, but we are unable to process your 

request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
Home2003 Treaties and Agreements...Nigeria (03-120) – Agreement concerning Finance Investment Incentive

# 									Nigeria (03-120) – Agreement concerning Finance Investment Incentive							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

January 20, 2003

Finance:  Investment Incentive

Agreement signed at Abuja December 6, 1999; entered into force January 20, 2003.
Download Agreement						 [2 MB]

Tags

FinanceNigeriaTreaties and International Agreements

Back to Top
HomeThe United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS ReliefRemarks & Releases...Keeping Girls in School

# 									Keeping Girls in School							

Stories of Hope

The students and faculty at Chipinge High School just achieved something remarkable: 100 percent of the kids who entered Form 2 (equivalent to Grade 9) three years ago are now writing their O-levels (to complete secondary school). At any high school in Zimbabwe, this would be an accomplishment. But this is particularly the case in this community, which is facing serious challenges with keeping adolescent girls in school. Four out of 10 girls in Chipinge complete less than a primary education or never attend school. Nearly one in 10 is married before the age of 18. More than a quarter have lost one or both parents.

School guidance counselor Esther credits DREAMS for this transformation. DREAMS is chipping away at harmful cultur­al practices and barriers that used to cause girls to drop out of school. During the past three years, there were no early marriages or teenage pregnancies in Chipinge High School. DREAMS pays school fees for the most vulnerable children. DREAMS even ensures that girls have access to sanitary pads, keeping them in school for a week each month when many have stayed home in the past. Esther says DREAMS has changed the way girls perceive themselves and the world around them: “You can see girls now feel they are people.”

The girls at Chipinge High School agree. DREAMS Club president Christinah says, “I could spend all day until to­morrow telling you what DREAMS has done for my life.” At age 16, Christinah is raising her younger brother because her parents left Zimbabwe in pursuit of work. Christinah is a passionate leader who takes pride in raising awareness of issues that impact girls and helping her peers stay healthy, including mobilizing 300 students at her school for HIV testing. Another student Bessie says DREAMS has been piv­otal for her as an adolescent girl who doesn’t have a strong safety net: “I really need to be determined because I have no one to stand for me.”

Tags

DREAMSThe United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...In Celebration of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month

# 									In Celebration of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander Heritage Month							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

May 2, 2022

This month, the United States celebrates Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) Heritage Month and the diverse contributions of these communities to all fields and, especially, public service.  The Asian American community is diverse, dynamic, and growing, encompassing a wide range of experiences from Native Hawaiians, to 1800s pioneers from East Asia and the Philippines, to immigrants from South and Southeast Asia.  At the Department of State, we are proud to have Asian Americans serving at the highest levels of leadership, from Under Secretary Uzra Zeya and Assistant Secretaries Michele Sison, Eliot Kang, and Donald Lu, to Special Representative and Ambassador Sung Kim, Executive Secretary Kamala Lakhdhir, and several of our Ambassadors proudly serving their country at posts around the world.  We tremendously appreciate these and the many other talented Asian Americans who are tackling the foreign policy challenges of the 21st century and representing the United States at home and abroad.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDiversity and InclusionOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
{In Archive} Re: MCU Part 71 permit

justin.j.harrison to: Shaheerah Kelly 03/23/2006 04:51 PM

Cc: delphine.s.whitehorse, christopher.w.armstrong, neil.j.ryan

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

Shaheerah,

That would be great. I will get with the appropriate 

people from

ExxonMobil and let you know our availability and who 

will attend. Thanks.

Justin J. Harrison

ExxonMobil U.S. Production

Regulatory Air Compliance

CORP-MI-3038

P.O. Box 4358

Houston, TX 77210-4358

Office: 281-654-1127

Fax: 281-654-1147

 "Nobody Gets Hurt"

 

 Kelly.Shaheera 

 h@epamail.epa. 

 gov 

To 

 

justin.j.harrison@exxonmobil.com, 

delphine.s.whitehorse@exxonmobil.com 

 03/23/06 04:45 

cc 

 PM 

 

Subject 

 MCU Part 71 

permit 

 

Hi. We would like to have a conference call with 

ExxonMobil to discuss

the drafting of the Part 71 permit for the McElmo 

Creek Unit. We were

considering doing this very soon during the week of 

April 3 or April 10.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would let me 
your availability

during these times and who from ExxonMobil would be 

participating in the

call.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks.

Shaheerah Kelly

U S EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579
HomePeople...Lacy Kilraine

# 				Lacy Kilraine			

															Managing Director for Planning, Performance, and Systems						Office of Foreign Assistance												

				July 1, 2020 -									March 29, 2022							

**Lacy Kilraine's term ended on March 29, 2022.**Lacy Kilraine serves a dual hatted role as the USAID Senior Coordinator for the Bureau for Foreign Assistance, and the Managing Director of the Planning, Performance, and Systems Division in the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance.For 15 years, Lacy has advanced foreign assistance priorities from diverse perspectives, including in Washington and the field; at USAID, State, and Peace Corps; on the Hill and in the Executive Branch; and as a policymaker, implementer, and auditor.  Most immediately prior to her current position, Lacy played critical leadership roles for several years in USAID/Afghanistan, USAID’s largest and most complex Mission.  She also has worked in USAID’s Office of Afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs; the Bureau for Policy, Planning, and Learning; and the Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean – throughout which time she had the opportunity to collaborate on-the-ground with more than 15 Missions.  Lacy also has served as a detailee at the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General and the House Appropriations Committee.  These experiences armed Lacy to build bridges across stakeholders, issues, and development disciplines, including in volatile and high-profile environments.Lacy was a Peace Corps volunteer in Honduras.  She holds a bachelor’s degree from Brown University and a master’s degree from American University.
Tags
Office of Foreign AssistanceState Department OfficialBack to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
**Title   
Hubble 25 : a    quarter-century of discovery with the hubble    telescope. 
 
**SuDoc****Number  ****[if !vml]>[endif]>NAS 1.2:H 86/8 
**Item    Number   
[if !vml]>[endif]>0830-C (online)[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]>[endif]>[if !supportMisalignedColumns]>   [endif]>  
Version: PDF  |  ePub |
 
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  September 24,  2016  Page Name:  http://permanent.fdlp.gov/
 ****** |
|--|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            6488
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       24
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6512
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               99
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        6413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6512
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   773
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   385
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    388
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                388
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       388
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>
****

This chart presents 1996 Oregon exports to the New Independent States of the former SovietUnion.  Data used to create the chart were collected by the **Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce**, With further analysis by the **University of Massachusetts,Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research** (MISER).  For more informationcall Pat Sweeney at **BISNIS**, at (202)482-4655x20.
'95 export data for Oregon
Return to USA Export Map
Return to BISNIS Home Page
NUMBER 13-10-00264-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Vela

Dissenting Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela

Relator, the State of Texas, acting by and through Armando R. Villalobos, the

Cameron County and District Attorney, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

cause on May 3, 2010, contending that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering

Villalobos “to testify regarding his trial strategy or discretionary functions as Prosecutor.”

I agree with the State that any purported testimony sought to be elicited from Villalobos

would encompass trial strategy or his discretionary functions as the District Attorney, and

accordingly, any such testimony would be impermissible. See Whitaker v. State, 286
2

S.W.3d 355, 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Hankins v. State, 132 S.W.3d 380, 388 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2004); Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Therefore,

I would grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to withdraw its

order requiring Villalobos to appear and present testimony in the underlying cause. Thus,

I respectfully dissent.

Justice Rose Vela 

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

17th day of May, 2010.
HomeCases Filed Against Nicaragua...Lopez-Goyne et al. v. Nicaragua

# 									Lopez-Goyne et al. v. Nicaragua							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes

The Lopez-Goyne Family Trust and others, a group of U.S. investors, filed a claim against the Republic of Nicaragua under the CAFTA-DR. The claimants allege that Nicaragua’s termination of a hydrocarbon concession contract expropriated their investment in the company that held the contract.

**09/28/2021**U.S. Article 1128 Submission [272 KB]U.S. Article 1128 Submission – Accessible version [258 KB]

Find further information and documents concerning this claim.

Tags

ArbitrationFree Trade AgreementsNicaraguaNorth American Free Trade Agreement

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4940

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus BERNARD KNIGHT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-01-48) Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: April 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Lisa A. Broccoletti, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Joseph McNulty, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Arenda L. Wright Allen, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bernard Knight appeals the district court’s order imposing a thirty-six month term of imprisonment and a twenty-four month term of imprisonment, to be served concurrently, upon revocation of his supervised release. Knight’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but suggesting the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Knight. Although informed of his right to do so, Knight has not filed a supplemental brief. We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 438, 442-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Moreover, because Knight’s sentence does not exceed the maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000), we review the sentence to determine only whether it is plainly unreasonable. See18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). Upon review of the record, we conclude Knight’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable. In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Knight’s sentence. This court requires counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be- 3 - filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

AFFIRMED