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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7461

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BILL WINFIELD CONARD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-01-286; CA-04-1462-6)

Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 20, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bill Winfield Conard, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Bill Winfield Conard seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) on

the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year limit for such

actions. 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, 336-38 (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 Conard 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
§ 17.617 Agreement and obligated service. ( a ) *Agreement.* Each eligible veteran who accepts funds from the VHVMASP will enter into an agreement with VA where the eligible veteran agrees to the following: ( 1 ) Maintain enrollment, attendance, and acceptable level of academic standing as defined by the covered medical school;
( 2 ) Complete post-graduate training leading to eligibility for board certification in a physician specialty applicable to VA;
( 3 ) After completion of medical school and post-graduate training, obtain and maintain a license to practice medicine in a State. Eligible veterans must ensure that State licenses are obtained in a minimal amount of time following completion of residency, or fellowship, if the veteran is enrolled in a fellowship program approved by VA. If a participant fails to obtain his or her degree, or fails to become licensed in a State no later than 90 days after completion of residency, or fellowship, if applicable, the participant is considered to be in breach of the acceptance agreement; and
( 4 ) Serve as a full-time clinical practice employee in VA for a period of four years.
( b ) *Obligated service* — ( 1 ) *General.* An eligible veteran's obligated service will begin on the date on which the eligible veteran begins full-time permanent employment with VA as a clinical practice employee. VA will appoint the participant to such position as soon as possible, but no later than 90 days after the date that the participant completes residency, or fellowship, if applicable, or the date the participant becomes licensed in a State, whichever is later.
( 2 ) *Location and position of obligated service.* VA reserves the right to make final decisions on the location and position of the obligated service.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0793.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.959 Appeal in *inter partes* reexamination.

Appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under 35 U.S.C. 134(c) are conducted according to part 41 of this title.

[77 FR 46628, Aug. 6, 2012]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
P. 1


# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 133 ) IV-C-99 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:58AM Sheet 133 of 232/ •



# MA

R

# 3 I 198 3

Re : Freedc a o f Informatio nAc t Request,FIB : no-RTH-1460-9 8

•'-..•••',•" . ''.. ' f M " " ' ~-V ; ' ' " ' •••''.'•' . • ' ' " Mr . Samue l A . Leonard , Directo r Automotiv e Scissio nContro l Sn?„ i rOjimenta l Activitie s Staf f General\Motor s Corporatio n Genera l motor s Technica l Cente r barren , K I 4809 0 Dea r ?-'r . Leonard : Thi s lette r i s i nrespons e t o you r Freerlo r o f Informatio n hot (FOIA ) reques t o f M.arch-< , .1983 . A nextensio no f th e tim e ceca l re- 3 t o compl yv:it hyou r reques t i s necessar ys o r.h?. t w e ca* : 1 ) examin e a significan t quantit yo f material s locate d i n £?A' a Publi c Informatio nFcferenc * T)ni t t o correctl yidentif y .thos e rtocoments pertainin g t o vou r request , an ^ ?) examin e othe r saterial s fc r thei r applicabilit yt o you r request . A s i ? roriul t o f telephon e communication s o nMarc h2 ? e.n- 5 ?3 , l?9.°. betwee nMr , Timoth yilcCan no f Genera l Actor s an: * Mr . P-?tn r Vutchin s o f F?A , Apri l 193 ? wsr , mutuall yaqre d uoor > ?. s bein* . acceptabl e fo r FPA.' P respons e t o you r FOIA . T n 

### tho shov e r e * • e r e n< teleoSoT. 1 * coT.n'.ir ! ic ^ 1 1 or. ? ': r . I'c^.'i

n wa s c.uerie 3 wit hresoec t to : \) th e n-?e; i 

### FP At o COT? V

### *n * transmi t

u n * ^ ^ * • th e FOI * r^nuos t ^'ocorcnt s whic har c nlreao vavai l " J ^K l ntb e oub?i c c'onket , *.r\- 7) th* ? noe•'. - t c co n v :-n: l trsncrf.i t i:rr";o r FOI Areques t al l m.iterisl a containe d ir. th e tes t packet s i nou ^ file s applicabl e t o th e FOI Arecrne^t . ?*r . McCann' s response s t o thes e querie s wer e fi s follows : l\ tha t ther e wa s n o nee d t o cop yan- 2 transmi t document s alrcsi vi nth e publi c docke t (Mr . McCan nrequeste d tha t SP A provid e individua l documen t identifier s fo r applicabl e c*ocuTCents) , 7) tha t copyin g tes t chec hlist s an d compute r printout s showin g calculate d emission s voul'? . b e require dbu t tha t copyin g o f T.A- 4 driver s traces , ra wPI D dat a stri p chart s an d ra wtemperatur e recorde r stri p chart s woul d no t b e required . Thes e uncopie d stri p chart s an d driver s trace s wil l b e taade 3V?iilab.l e fo r you r inspectio nshoul d yo u s o desire .P. 3



### • V--.* •

BNVIRONWIENTA LPROTECTIO M

«l?CMr v 

### AP R 

### I 2 198

8 CIV-fct
. L'UortE T Sl z C T IO NP. 4



### w e ar e oroceedin g ( 

### vat hth e identificatio no f and collectio no f th e informatio n. requeste d i nyou r FOI Areques t andexpec t t o delive r th e applicabl e material s bythe agree dt o <iat*> o f Apri l 2 , 1938. . Sincerel yyours ,
Charle s L. Gray , Jr . Directo r Emissio nContro l Technolog yDivisio n r.BY 

### FOXOffic e
§ 1.987 Review by the hearing official or administrative law judge. ( a ) The hearing official or administrative law judge shall uphold VA's determination of the existence and amount of the debt unless determined to be erroneous by a preponderance of the evidence.
( b ) The hearing official or administrative law judge shall uphold VA's offset schedule unless the schedule would result in extreme hardship to the employee.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5514)
[52 FR 1905, Jan. 16, 1987; 52 FR 23824, June 25, 1987]
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 751/2005

of 17 May 2005         

establishing unit values for the determination of the customs value of certain perishable goods

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, and in particular Article 173(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The unit values provided for in Article 173(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 are hereby established as set out in the table in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 May 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 May 2005.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN            

Vice-President

----

(1)OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (OJ L 311, 12.12.2000, p. 17).

(2)OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 (OJ L 343, 31.12.2003, p. 1).

----

ANNEX

----
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 48915 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–32] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–32 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: September 15, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
48916 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN25SE09.057</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 48917 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN25SE09.058</GPH>
48918 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN25SE09.059</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices 48919 

[FR Doc. E9–22950 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–51] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–51 

with attached transmittal, and policy 

justification. 

Dated: September 15, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN25SE09.060</GPH>
§ 20.106 Rule 106. Assignment of proceedings. ( a ) *Assignment.* The Chairman may assign a proceeding instituted before the Board, including any motion, to an individual Member or to a panel of three or more Members for adjudication or other appropriate action. The Chairman may participate in a proceeding assigned to a panel of Members. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102)
( b ) *Inability to serve.* If a Member is unable to participate in the disposition of a proceeding or motion to which the Member has been assigned, the Chairman may assign the proceeding or motion to another Member or substitute another Member (in the case of a proceeding or motion assigned to a panel).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7101(a), 7102)
[61 FR 20448, May 7, 1996. Redesignated at 84 FR 177, Jan. 18, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 4337, Feb. 15, 2019]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 11.104 Communication.

(a) A practitioner shall:

(1) Promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent is required by the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct;

(2) Reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;

(3) Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

(4) Promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the client; and

(5) Consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the practitioner's conduct when the practitioner knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

(b) A practitioner shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
§ 18.543 Mediation. ( a ) Referral of complaints for mediation. VA will refer to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service all complaints that: ( 1 ) Fall within the jurisdiction of the Act and these regulations; and
( 2 ) Contain all information necessary for further processing.
( b ) Both the complainant and the recipient shall participate in the mediation process to the extent necessary to reach an agreement or make an informed judgment that an agreement is not possible. However, the recipient and the complainant need not meet with the mediator at the same time.
( c ) If the complainant and the recipient reach an agreement, the mediator shall prepare a written statement of the agreement and have the complainant and the recipient sign it. The mediator shall send a copy of the agreement to VA. VA will take no further action on the complaint unless the complainant or the recipient fails to comply with the agreement.
( d ) The mediator shall protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of the mediation process. No mediator shall testify in any adjunctive proceeding, produce any document, or otherwise disclose any information obtained in the course of the mediation process without prior approval of the head of the mediation agency.
( e ) VA will use the mediation process for a maximum of 60 days after the responsible agency official receives a complaint.
( f ) Mediation ends if: ( 1 ) 60 days elapse from the time the responsible agency official receives the complaint; or
( 2 ) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, an agreement is reached; or
( 3 ) Prior to the end of that 60-day period, the mediator determines that an agreement cannot be reached.
( g ) The mediator shall return unresolved complaints to VA.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107)
Allen Physchem Effluent: Questionable Mercury Results

Results having "< ‐‐>" in the column to the left indicates the parameter was not detected above the laboratory de

Lab File Name Sample Date BDL Bio 2 Eff Mercury (ppb)

Prism 09‐DEC‐0193 12/29/09 0.71

Shealy Env 10‐JAN‐0051 01/11/10 0.092
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 January 24, 2020

Order 

Clerk

January 24, 2020

160034(43)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 160034

v COA: 345268

Saginaw CC: 84-000570-FC

ROBIN RICK MANNING, Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of Anthony Legion, Travis Scott, and 

Gerald Byrd to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on

January 21, 2020, is accepted for filing.
#### Marie Bryant *v.*Dorothy J. Scribner

Maltbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

*679Argued May 7

decided June 17, 1948

*John Keogh, Jr.,*with whom, on the brief, was *George F. McKendry,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*William Hanna,*with whom was *Nathan G. Sachs,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

In this action for damages for the alienation of the affections of the plaintiff’s husband, the plaintiff has appealed from the judgment rendered upon a verdict in favor of the defendant. While the parties contested both the question of liability and of damages at the trial, the plaintiff made no attack on the verdict upon the ground that the evidence did not reasonably support it. Her only assignments of error upon this appeal relate to rulings by the court in admitting evidence over her objection.

Evidence admitted over the plaintiff’s objection related to claimed indiscretions by her husband with the defendant’s daughter. The only relevancy to the issue of liability which this evidence could have would be as the basis for an inference that the defendant would not be likely under these circumstances to seek to win the affections of the plaintiff’s *680husband. In view of the defendant’s negative answer to the inquiry whether she knew of these claimed indiscretions, the allowance of the question could not amount to harmful error. Further, the defendant was permitted to lay in evidence the record of‘the conviction of the plaintiff’s husband for rape, claimed to have been predicated upon his misconduct referred to above. It was an agreed fact that the plaintiff and her husband separated not later than November, 1943, and the conviction occurred in June, 1944. The record of conviction at most could have given rise to a remote and unsubstantial inference bearing upon whether the defendant had alienated the affections of the plaintiff’s husband, an inference which the record does not show to have been suggested by either party at the trial. Its admission cannot be held to constitute reversible error.

By another ruling the defendant was allowed to testify as to the number of her children and their ages. These questions fell within the scope of permissible inquiries ordinarily asked when a witness is first called to the stand, to furnish a general background upon which the trier can judge the witness and to put the witness at ease. In the absence of any extraordinary situation indicating that they were materially prejudicial, the court’s ruling was well within its discretion.

Aside from those referred to in the preceding paragraphs, the other rulings clearly were relevant only to the issue of damages. Since the verdict was rendered for the defendant and is not open to valid attack, the rulings affecting the amount of damages solely are immaterial. Conn. App. Proc. § 14, note 2; *Lukovits*v. *Palmer,*126 Conn. 320, 324, 10 A. 2d 761.

There is no error.
#### § 18.401 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which is designed to eliminate discrimination on the basis of handicap in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.