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

**No. 09**  **- 7718** 

EARL D. BURGESS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:09

- cv - 00083

- RAJ

- JEB )

Submitted : February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Earl D. Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIA M: Earl D. Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s order s accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition , and denying his motions to alter or amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . 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) (2006) . 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 disposi tive 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 rec ord and conclude that Burgess 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60363 Summary Calendar

LEONARO VASO, also known as Leonard Vaso; KELA VASO; KATERINA VASO, Petitioners,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A96 292 404 No. A96 292 405 No. A96 292 406

--------------------

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Leonaro Vaso, Kela Vaso, and Katerina Vaso, natives and citizens of Albania, petition for review of the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against TortureNo. 05-60363 -2- (“CAT”). They argue that the IJ erroneously determined that Leonard Vaso’s asylum application was untimely, and they contend that he was entitled to withholding of removal and relief under the CAT because he has been persecuted in Albania on account of his political opinion. Because the BIA relied on the IJ’s determination that the asylum application was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum. Cf. Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 528 (5th Cir. 2004)(in which the BIA did not indicate whether it was affirming the timeliness decision, the merits decision, or both). The record reveals that Leonard Vaso was subject to harassment that does not rise to the level of persecution. See Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004). The BIA’s determination affirming thedenial of withholding of removal and relief under the CAT is supported by substantial evidence, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002); Chun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). The petition for review is DENIED.
§ 313.100 Refunds. ( a ) If a hearing official determines that a debt is not legally due and owing to the United States, the FDIC shall promptly refund any amount collected by means of administrative wage garnishment.
( b ) Unless required by federal law or contract, refunds under this section shall not bear interest.
§ 404.7 Release of records. ( a ) *Foreseeable harm standard.* As required by the FOIA, EXIM will disclose material unless it reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption or disclosure is prohibited by law.
( b ) *Segregable records.* Whenever it is determined that a portion of a record is exempt from disclosure, any reasonably segregable portion of the record will be provided to the requester after redaction of the exempt material.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 199 (Friday, October 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53304-53305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24845]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 2, 2009, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit 
applications

[[Page 53305]]

received. Permits were issued on October 9, 2009 to: Carlos Gutierrez, 
Permit No. 2010-008; Alexander R. Simms, Permit No. 2010-009.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-24845 Filed 10-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Michael F. Newcombe, Respondent, *v.*Mark M. Cohn et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

January, 1901.)

Municipal Court o£ the city o£ New "York — Return day o£ summons against nonresident of the city — Jurisdiction.

Where a defendant or one of several defendants is a nonresident of the city of New York, its Municipal Court acquires no jurisdiction where its summons is made returnable more than four days from the date thereof. L. 1882, ch. 410, § 1298, subd. 1.

*603Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Mew York, eighth district, borough of Manhattan.

J. S. *&*H. A. Wise, for appellants.

Booth *&*Deane, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

It is clear that the defendant Cohn was a nonresident of this State when he was served with the summons. Section 1298 of the Mew York City Consolidation Act (L. 1882, ch. 410) requires that when the defendant or either of several defendants in a Municipal Court is not a resident of the city, the summons must he returnable in not less than two nor more than four days from its date. The summons in this case did not comply with this requirement, being returnable ten days after its date. Under such a summons the Municipal Court never acquired jurisdiction to award any judgment against the defendants. Williams v. Wheeler, 8 Abb. Pr. 116; Allison v. Snider Preserve Co., 20 Misc. Rep. 367.

The judgment appealed from must be reversed, with costs.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3068

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2055 Siesta Drive in Sarasota, Florida, as the ‘‘Brigadier General (AUSRet.) John H. McLain Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2003

Ms. HARRIS (for herself, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. KELLER, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. FEENEY, 

Mr. BILIRAKIS, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. BOYD, Mr. 

GOSS, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mr. MEEK of 

Florida, Mr. MICA, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. LINCOLN

DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. 

DEUTSCH, and Mr. SHAW) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2055 Siesta Drive in Sarasota, Florida, as 

the ‘‘Brigadier General (AUS-Ret.) John H. McLain 

Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3068 IH 

1 SECTION 1. BRIGADIER GENERAL (AUS-RET.) JOHN H. 

2 MCLAIN POST OFFICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 2055 Siesta Drive in Sarasota, 

5 Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Brigadier 

6 General (AUS-Ret.) John H. McLain Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the Brigadier General 

11 (AUS-Ret.) John H. McLain Post Office.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Adelphia Communications Corp. for the
nine months ended December 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000796486
<NAME> ADELPHIA COMMUNICATION CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         381,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,871<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,464,406<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,277,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,856,580
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           306
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,278,360)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,277,565
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,905
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  296,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (196,849)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (122,554)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       559
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (123,113)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (11,325)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (134,438)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.95)
<FN>
<F1>Receivables netted with Allowance
<F2>PP&E netted with Depreciation
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

                 Consent of Independent Public Accountants
    As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our reports dated November 9, 1998, included
in or incorporated by reference into ThermoLase Corporation's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 3, 1998, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements as follows:  Registration
Statement No. 33-88396 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-88398 on
Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-88394 on Form S-8, Registration
Statement No. 33-88400 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-80749 on
Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-84516 on Form S-3, Registration
Statement No. 33-94658 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-19633
on Form S-4, Registration Statement No. 333-34467 on Form S-3.



                                               Arthur Andersen LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
December 15, 1998
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00193-CV

SUSAN FLOYD, Appellant

V.

STEPHEN FLOYD, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 360th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (360-686833-20)

August 8, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s decree of divorce. It is ordered that the decree of the 

trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0000900393
<NAME>                        Turbosonic Technologies, Inc.


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                   JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               407,784
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1,060,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                          61,904
<INVENTORY>                                          105,729
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2,211,824
<PP&E>                                               848,292
<DEPRECIATION>                                       705,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     3,399,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,580,265
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                           3,747,134
<OTHER-SE>                                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       3,399,776
<SALES>                                            6,181,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   6,181,562
<CGS>                                              4,390,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      6,088,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (37,471)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       55,768
<INCOME-TAX>                                          24,828
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   30,940
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          30,940
<EPS-BASIC>                                             0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.00



</TABLE>
Jacob Hinton

Flyover Services, LLC 

40 Harkins St

McDonough, GA 30253

jake@flyoverservices.com

6786147129

Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 14191

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Please let this serve as a petition for amendments to the Section 333 exemption granted to Flyover Services, LLC, 

specifically in reference to Exemption No. 14191 and Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-4766. Flyover Services, 

LLC would like to add the following DJI airframes to its list of approved UAS:

DJI Phantom 3 Standard

DJI Phantom 3 Advanced

DJI Phantom 3 Professional

DJI Phantom 3 4K

DJI Inspire 1

DJI S1000

DJI S900

DJI Matrice 100

All of these models use the same methodology and systems as the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + which was a part of our 

initial exemption. All procedures and methods used on the Phantom 2 Vision + will be employed on the new 

airframes. The user manuals for the airframes can be found here:

DJI Phantom 3 Standard -

https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_3_standard/en/Phantom_3_Standard_User_Manual_v1.4_en_0112.pdf

DJI Phantom 3 Advanced - http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Advanced_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf

DJI Phantom 3 Professional -

https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual__V1.6.pdf

DJI Phantom 3 4K - https://dl.djicdn.com/downloads/phantom_3_4k/en/Phantom_3_4K_User_Manual_en_1.8.pdf

DJI Inspire 1- http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf

DJI S1000 - http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/s1000/en/S1000_User_Manual_v1.00_en.pdf

DJI S900 - https://www.wellbots.com/content/DJI_SpreadingWings_S900_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf

DJI Matrice 100 - http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/M100_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf

CONCLUSION:

Flyover Services fully intends to comply with all existing and forth coming FAA rules and regulations concerning 

sUAS. It is our intention to obtain this amendment for that very reason. Should you have any further questions, 

please contact me at the number or email below.

Thank You

Jacob Hinton

Partner/Operator

Flyover Services, LLC

40 Harkins St.

Mcdonough, GA 30253

jake@flyoverservices.com

678-614-7129
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-61516) of The Robert Mondavi Corporation of our
report dated July 27, 1999 appearing on page 43 of the Annual Report to
Shareholders which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial
Statement Schedule, which appears on page 13 of this Form 10-K.


/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
----------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Francisco, California
September 27, 1999
221012 SCH ORD RE MOLINA STAY RELIEF VERSION OCTOBER 12, 2022 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO et al.,

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFING AND HEARING CONCERNING MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY FILED BY LILIA MOLINA RUIZ

The Court has received and reviewed the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay

(Docket Entry No. 22229 in Case No. 17-3283)

2 (the “Motion”), filed by Lilia Molina Ruiz 

(“Movant”). The Motion purports to provide notice of an objection deadline of October 26, 

2022, notwithstanding the briefing schedule required by the Sixteenth Amended Case 

Management Procedures (Docket Entry No. 20190-1) for motions returnable at the November 2, 

2022, omnibus hearing.

It is hereby ordered that opposition papers to the Motion must be filed by 

October 18, 2022. Movant’s reply papers must be filed by October 25, 2022. The Motion will 

be heard in connection with the omnibus hearing scheduled for November 2, 2022.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2022 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number 

and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are 

the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits 

of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto 

Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3567-LTS) 

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the 

Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3566-

LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 

(“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 

3747); and (vi) Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 19-BK5523-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3801) (Title III case numbers are listed as 

Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations).

2 All docket entry references herein are to the docket of Case No. 17-3283.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22585 Filed:10/12/22 Entered:10/12/22 13:57:06 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40267 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MELISSA STRINGER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CR-314-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 15, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *Melissa Stringer appeals her sentence, following a guiltyplea conviction, for one count of distribution of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2552(a)(4), (b)(1), and (b)(2). Stringer does not contest her prison term or her term of supervised release. Instead, for the first time on appeal, she challenges the imposition of special conditions of supervision. These claims are reviewable for plain error only. United StatesNo. 01-40267 -2- v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). First, Stringer argues that the district court’s oral pronouncement of the supervised-release condition prohibiting her from owning a computer contradicted the court’s written pronouncement, by which the court stated that she could not “own, possess or use a computer.” Although an oral pronouncement controls when there is a “conflict” between a written sentence and an oral pronouncement, Stringer has not shown that the distinction in her case is anything other than an “ambiguity,” which would require this court to examine the entire record to determine the district court’s true intent. See United States v. Martinez , 250 F.3d 941, 942 (5th Cir. 2001). She has not shown “clear” or “obvious” error. See Calverley , 37 F.3d at 162. Second, Stringer contends that a supervisory condition that prohibited her from working around children and the computer-use condition were both vague and overbroad. Although it appears that the district court could have tailored these two conditions more specifically to correspond to Stringer’s personal and criminal background, Stringer has cited no precedential decisional authority to demonstrate that any error by the district court was clear or obvious. Accordingly, Stringer has not shown plain error as to her second set of arguments, either. See Calverley , 37 F.3d at 162-64. The sentence is AFFIRMED. Stringer’s motion to seal her motion for downward departure is GRANTED.