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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EMMANUEL S. MCCRAE, a/k/a Ike,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,

District Judge. (5:01-cr-00106-BO-1)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel S. McCrae, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel S. McCrae seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration

of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 McCrae 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 legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7478

LENTON A. FERGUSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LISA EDWARDS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:05-cv-01125-GBL)

Submitted: December 6, 2006 Decided: December 14, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lenton A. Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lenton A. Ferguson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. 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 his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

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

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

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

record and conclude that Ferguson has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny Ferguson’s motion for a certificate

of appealability and dismiss 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
EXHIBIT 10.29



 Exhibit 10.29 
  
 STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered as of the 6th day of November, 2003 by and between Highland Hospitality Corporation, a
Maryland corporation (the “REIT”) and Brahman Partners II, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Investor”). 
  
 THE PARTIES ENTER THIS AGREEMENT on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions: 
  
 WHEREAS, the REIT proposes to undertake an underwritten initial public
offering (the “Offering”) of shares of its common stock, par value $0.01 per share (“Shares”) pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-11 (the “Registration Statement”) filed pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Investor desires to purchase Shares directly from the REIT in a private transaction as set forth herein. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual representations, warranties, covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties
hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows: 
  
 1. Investor hereby agrees to purchase 300,000 Shares directly from the REIT on the terms set forth herein. The purchase price per share for the Shares purchased by Investor shall be the initial public offering price set forth in the final
prospectus for the Offering (the “Prospectus”), less an amount equal to the underwriting discount. 
  
 2. Investor understands and agrees that Investor’s purchase of the Shares hereunder is being made pursuant to a private placement exempt from the
registration requirements of the Securities Act and the Shares may not be sold, transferred or conveyed by Investor except in compliance with applicable securities laws. 
  
 3. The purchase of the Shares by Investor shall be by means of a cash payment (wire transfer or other means acceptable to
the REIT) and shall close at the time of closing of the Offering. 
  
 4. Investor hereby agrees that Investor’s purchase of the Shares may be described in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus. 
  
 5. Investor hereby represents and warrants to the REIT that: 
  
 a. Investor is, and at the time of closing of the purchase of the Shares by Investor will be, a “Qualified Institutional Buyer”
as that term is defined in Rule 144A under the Securities Act; and 
  
 b. Investor has received all information Investor deems relevant or necessary with respect to Investor’s purchase of the Shares. 







 6. This Agreement shall terminate if the closing of the Offering shall not have occurred on or before
March 15, 2004. 
  
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into effective as of the 6th day of November, 2003. 
  
  

	 HIGHLAND HOSPITALITY CORPORATION
  

	 By: /s/    James L.
Francis                                

	 Name: James L. Francis

	 Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
  
  

	 BRAHMAN PARTNERS II, L.P.
  

	 By: /s/    Robert
Sobel                                    

	 Name: Robert Sobel

	 Title: Member of G.P.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT HOUSTON, TEXAS LUIS EDUARDO LARA § § Appellant § § vs. § CASE NO. 14-15-00581-CR § § TRIAL COURT NO. 14CR2148 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § Appellee §

APPELLANT’S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW LUIS EDUARDO LARA, Appellant in the above-styled and numbered cause, by his Counsel of Record, Greg Russell, and pursuant to
T EX .R.A PP .P . 34.6(d), files this Motion For Extension of Time to File Appellant’s and in support thereof would show this Honorable Court the following:

I. Appellant was found guilty by a jury Sexual Assault of Child, Indecency ACCEPTED 14-15-00581-CR FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/9/2015 1:49:55 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKwith a Child by Contact and Continuos Sexual Abuse Child and punishment was assessed at 15 years, 8 Years and 28 years, respectively, Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

II. Appellant’s Brief was due on or before October 5, 2015.

III. Appellant’s counsel, apparently, incorrectly imputed the due date of Appellant’s Brief for November 5, 2015, instead of the correct due date of October 5, 2015. This was an oversight/mistake on the part of appellant’s counsel.

IV. Additionally, appellant’s counsel has been preparing for a trial that will begin on October 13, 2015 in Fort Bend County, that involves an automatic life sentence upon a conviction. The case is styled The State of Texas vs. Jeremy Lange, 14DCR65359, 14DCR65360, 14DCR65361 and 14DCR66459, in the 400th District Court. Appellant’s counsel has been preparing for this trial for most of August and September 2015.V. Due to appellant’s counsel being in trial beginning October 13, 2015 in Fort Bend that will in all liklihood last two weeks, appellant respectfully requests a 45 day extension to file Appellant’s Brief. Appellant prays that this extension be granted and that Appellant’s Brief be ordered due to this Court within 45 days.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Greg Russell Greg Russell Attorney for Appellant 711 59th Street Galveston, Texas 77551 (409) 497-4743 (409) 497-4721 Fax SBN: 174115CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to T EX .R.A PP .P . 9.5(d), this motion was served on Mr. Jack Roady, Galveston County District Attorney, 600 59 th Street, 1 st Floor, Galveston, Texas, 77551, by efile/email service, on October 9, 2015.
/s/ Greg Russell Greg Russell

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I do hereby that this motion is in compliance with Rule 9.4(i) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it is computer generated and its relevant portions contain 427 words.

/s/ Greg Russell Greg Russell
1501 Lee Highway ▪ Suite 180 ▪ Arlington, Virginia 22209

www.mcbreenkopko.com

December 10, 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Application of GoJet Airlines, LLC for Renewal of Exemptions (US-Canada)

Dockets OST-2009-0348 and OST-2012-0160

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter will confirm that GoJet Airlines, LLC has polled all carriers on the service list to the 

above-referenced Application filed on December 9, 2014 and there are no objections.1

Please contact me with any with any questions.

Very truly yours,

Lisa A. Harig

Counsel for GoJet Airlines, LLC

cc: Brett Kruger

 1 We were unable to contact counsel for Evergreen International Airlines. We understand Evergreen is no longer 

operating flights, has filed for bankruptcy (Chapter 7), and is, therefore, unlikely to object to this Application.
AIR QUALITY 17.8.102 

17.8.102 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE--PUBLICATION DATES

(1) In this chapter where the board has:

(a) adopted a federal regulation by reference, the reference is to the July 1, 

2013, edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR);

(b) adopted a section of the United States Code (USC) by reference, the 

reference is to the 2012 edition of the USC as it exists on December 31, 2013;

(c) adopted a rule of the state of Montana from another chapter of the 

Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM), the reference is to the rule in effect on June 

30, 2013.

(2) For purposes of this chapter, the following subparts of 40 CFR Part 63 

are excluded from incorporation by reference:

(a) 40 CFR 63, Subpart JJJJJ, National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing (40 CFR 63.8380 

through 63.8515, and all associated appendices and tables); and

(b) 40 CFR 63, Subpart KKKKK, National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (40 CFR 63.8530 through 63.8665, 

and all associated appendices and tables). (History: 75-2-111, MCA; IMP, Title 75, 

chapter 2, MCA; NEW, 1996 MAR p. 1844, Eff. 7/4/96; TRANS, from DHES, 1996 

MAR p. 2285; AMD, 1997 MAR p. 1581, Eff. 9/9/97; AMD, 1998 MAR p. 1725, Eff. 

6/26/98; AMD, 1999 MAR p. 2250, Eff. 10/8/99; AMD, 2000 MAR p. 2696, Eff. 

10/6/00; AMD, 2001 MAR p. 1468, Eff. 8/10/01; AMD, 2002 MAR p. 1747, Eff. 

6/28/02; AMD, 2003 MAR p. 645, Eff. 4/11/03; AMD, 2004 MAR p. 724, Eff. 4/9/04; 

AMD, 2005 MAR p. 959, Eff. 6/17/05; AMD, 2006 MAR p. 1956, Eff. 8/11/06; AMD, 

2007 MAR p. 1663, Eff. 10/26/07; AMD, 2008 MAR p. 2267, Eff. 10/24/08; AMD, 

2009 MAR p. 411, Eff. 4/17/09; AMD, 2009 MAR p. 1784, Eff. 10/16/09; AMD, 2011 

MAR p. 143, Eff. 2/11/11; AMD, 2012 MAR p. 2603, Eff. 12/21/12; AMD, 2014 MAR 

p. 1256, Eff. 6/13/14.)

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF MONTANA 6/30/14 17-233
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 07-0011 

IN THE MATTER OF CALLING A RETIRED 

DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTIVE SERVICE 

FiLED 

AUG 1 1 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

The Honorable Heather Perry, Judge of the District Court for the Tenth Judicial 

District of the State of Montana, has requested the assistance of retired District Judge 

Wm. Nels Swandal to assume jurisdiction of Petroleum County Cause No. DP-2020-06, 

In the Matter of the Estate of Cal R. Nunn. 

Judge Swandal has retired under the provisions of the Montana Judges' Retirement 

System and, being subject to call for duty pursuant to § 19-5-103(a) and (b), MCA, has 

advised that he is agreeable to assisting the Tenth Judicial District Court with the 

above-listed matter. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Honorable Wm. Nels Swandal, retired District Judge, is hereby called to 

active service in the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, 

to assume judicial authority of Petroleum County Cause No. DP-2020-06, In the Matter of 

the Estate of Cal R. Nunn, and is hereby authorized to proceed with any and all necessary 

hearings, opinions, and orders, including final resolution of said matter. 

2. For all active service, Judge Swandal shall be paid the salary compensation to 

which he is entitled by § 19-5-103(2)(b), MCA, and actual expenses, if any, shall be 

reimbursed. 

3. A copy of this Order shall be filed with the Clerk of Court of the Tenth Judicial 

District, Petroleum County, with the request that this Order be sent to all counsel of record 

in the above-listed matter. 

08/11/2022

Case Number: PR 07-0011
4. A copy of this Order shall also be furnished to the Honorable Heather Perry, the 

Honorable Wm. Nels Swandal, and to Cathy Pennie, Office of the Supreme Court 

Administrator. 

This Order is entered by the Chief Justice pursuant to Article VII, Section 6(3) of 

the 1972 Montana Constitution, and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in 

implementation thereof. 

, "1"\-N 

DATED this 1 I 'day of August, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

2
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold
Mines, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Executive Officer of the Company
and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;
      and                        
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
      of the Company.





/s/ Garry L. Anselmo Garry
L. Anselmo President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

October 22, 2007

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### §§ 3.331-3.339 [Reserved]
i• I... Oil.. I...UIIll Ul I"UIIIUt::l 

# 359495**201~fiPRI5** 

### Afill:f3 3676 Davis Road N.W. • Dover, Ohio 44622 • (330) 343-7711 • 1-800-321-8805 • Fax: (330) 364-9626 April 7, 2014 Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Environmental ProtectionAgency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 ATTN: TSCA Section 4 40 CFR 799.5089; Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 Dover Chemical Study Plan for CAS# 72162-15-3 To whom itmay concern: Dover Chemical Corporation is submitting the attached Chronic Toxicity to Daphniareport basedthe EPA's HPV3 TEST PLAN AND DATA ADEQUACY REVIEW (Contract No. EP-W-09-027). The Combined Repeat Dose Toxicity with Reproduction/Developmental Tox Screening (Reproductive Toxicity Developmental Toxicity) study is complete butunder reviewbefore finalization and will be forwarded as soon as possible.
Should you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely,

TimNowicki Manager Product Compliance Dover Chemical Corporation 330-365-3610 tnowicki@doverchem.com
# C_2006084EN.01001001.xml

| 7.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/10

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC No 23/06

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

(2006/C 84/05)

1.   Objectives and description

Under the EU budget for 2006, the heading ‘15 06 06 — Special annual events’ includes remarks to the effect that ‘EUR 500 000 is intended to finance the organisation of cross-border venues in Augsburg, Salzburg and Vienna and to highlight the importance of W.A. Mozart's work for music and European culture’.

In the light of these remarks, therefore, the purpose of this call for proposals is to finance the organisation of cross-border events at venues in Augsburg, Salzburg and Vienna, in order to highlight the importance of W.A. Mozart's work for music and culture in Europe. This action ties in with the 250th anniversary of Mozart's birth.

2.   Eligible applicants

Those eligible to apply are public or private bodies with legal status, whose main activity lies in the cultural sphere and who are established in one of the following three cities: Augsburg, Salzburg and Vienna.

3.   Budget and duration of projects

The total budget allocated for this action is 500 000 EUR. The funding sought for projects should be between 50 000 and 100 000 EUR, and must not exceed 50 % of the total eligible project budget.

The activities must commence between 1 September 2006 (or, if justified, from 9 June 2006 at the earliest) and 15 November 2006. The duration of projects ought not to exceed 12 months. In exceptional circumstances, a maximum extension of six months may be granted, if duly justified and requested within the time limits specified in the agreement.

4.   Deadline

Applications must be sent to the Commission by Friday 9 June 2006 at the latest.

5.   Further information

The specifications and application forms are available on the Commission's Internet site at the following address:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/culture/eac/index_en.html

Applications must comply with the requirements set out in the specifications and be submitted using the forms provided for that purpose.

---
#### Howard Lockwood & Co., Respondent, *v.*Max Sello, Appellant.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order for the examination of third parties in supplementary proceedings.

Black, Olcott, Gruber & Bonynge (Theodore B. Chancellor, of counsel), for appellant. :

William G. Brown, for respondent.

*827Conlan, J.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order for the examination of third parties in supplementary proceedings.

The affidavit is on information and belief, and the affiant’s source of information does not satisfy us that the order should stand.

The relation of his information to the third parties is not given, except that he was a representative, but in what capacity is not shown, nor does his conversation with the plaintiff strengthen the affidavit. We think it falls within the ruling in 28 App. Div. 22, and 19 Misc. Rep. 670, and must, therefore, be reversed. Order appealed from reversed, with costs.

O’Dwyer and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1744

CONNIE HOWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KELLY SERVICES, INC.; IBM,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

MONICA MURRAY; DAVID DUNCAN; BEN KOTEY; JONATHAN OKAI,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:12-cv-00821-LO-TCB)

Submitted: December 18, 2015 Decided: December 23, 2015

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Connie Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Yoora Pak, WILSON ELSER 

MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, McLean, Virginia; Matthew 

Frederick Nieman, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for 

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Connie Howell seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

granting the Defendants’ motions to enforce a settlement 

agreement. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction 

because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 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). “[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).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

May 1, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 30, 2015. 

Because Howell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to 

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of 

counsel and 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