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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus JAMIE SYLVESTER HAWKINS, a/k/a Jaime Sylvester Hawkins, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-565-AW; CA-02-3096-AW) Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jamie Sylvester Hawkins, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his request for a certificate of appealability, which was in essence a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion that we construe as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4 th Cir.), cert. denied , 540 U.S. 995 (2003). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336- 38; 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 Hawkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.- 3 - Additionally, we construe Hawkins’ notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under § 2255. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d at 208. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Hawkins does not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize the filing of a successive § 2255 motion. We grant the motion to file an amended brief and 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
1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-1530 

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Cynthia Collette Vandry,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Southern District of Iowa.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: January 11, 2007

 Filed: January 29, 2007

________________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Cynthia Collette Vandry appeals the district court's1

 denial of her Rule 35(b)

motion to reduce her sentence. Assuming excusable neglect exists to pardon the

untimeliness of her notice of appeal, we affirm the district court's denial of Vandry's

motion. "There is no provision in Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure for a motion by a defendant for a reduction based upon a claim of

substantial assistance to the [G]overnment." United States v. Palmer, 297 F.3d 760,
-2-

768 (8th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1143, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1213, and cert.

denied, 538 U.S. 937 (2003). To the extent Vandry argues that the Government

should have filed a Rule 35(b) motion, she has failed to make a "substantial threshold

showing" that the Government's refusal to file the motion, which was left to the

Government's sole discretion in the plea agreement, was based on an unconstitutional

motive, and the Government’s refusal is therefore not subject to judicial review. See

United States v. Marks, 244 F.3d 971, 975 (8th Cir. 2001). The district court's

judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         285,755
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,804,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,088,594
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,700,408
<PP&E>                                         673,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                 371,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,094,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,832,712
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        125
<COMMON>                                           697
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,600,122)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,094,937
<SALES>                                      7,058,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,058,783
<CGS>                                        3,704,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,160,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,537
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             388,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,220,240)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,221,040)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,221,040)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)


</TABLE>
#### Dickson *v.*Hoff’s Adm’r.

A judgment by default, writ of inquiry and verdict, without taking issue.upon, pleas pleaded, is irregular.

The notes made by the judge on the docket are not part of the record nor evidence for any purpose, and a judgment cannot be amended by them.

ERROR to the circuit court of Hinds county.

Webber, for plaintiff in error.

Skelton, *contra,*

cited Com. Dig. Pleading, E. 5; 1 Ch. PI. 565; Ibid. 578-9; Com. Dig. E. 6; 2 Johnson’s Dig. 202, sect. 196.

Mr. Chief Justice Sharkey

delivered the opinion of the court. The action was debt on an open account. After the writ of error was brought, the defendant in error suggested diminution, and had a second record brought up. The first record discloses this state of the case.. After the declaration two pleas follow in the record, to which there are no issues. Immediately after the pleas comes a judgment by default, and an award of inquiry of damages, and then follows the verdict assessing damages. If this record presents the whole case, there is good ground for reversing the judgment, because it was irregular to. take judgment by default in the face of the pleas, and as they appear on the record, they must have been filed before the judgment. It is insisted for the defendant in error that they were not filed at the time of taking judgment by default, but afterwards; and that the judgment was set aside for the purpose of allowing the pleas. In support of this position resort is had to the second record, and so the fact does appear on that record; but the counsel on the other side insists that it was improperly placed there. Pending the writ of error in this court, the counsel for the defendant in error moved the circuit court to amend the record and judgment according to the facts. This motion was made twelve months after judgment, *166before a different judge from the one who tried the cause. The motion was to amend by the docket and the entries made thereon by the judge, and it was sustained and the entry on the record corrected. The motion was improperly sustained. It was decided in the case of Burney *v.*Boyett, 1 How. Rep. 39, that the notes made by the judge on the docket, constituted no part of the record, and were not evidence for any purpose. That they were even more objectionable than parol evidence. To say nothing of the time at which the amendment was made, we are satisfied that the evidence on which it was made did not justify the amendment, and that therefore there is nothing which regularly varies the case from the attitude in which it was presented by the first record. As there is error in that record, the judgment must be reversed and cause remanded, with a *venire de*novo.
Exhibit 32 (i)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

        In connection with the Form 10-Q of National Bankshares, Inc. for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006, I, James G. Rakes, President and Chief Executive
Officer of National Bankshares, Inc. (Principal Executive Officer), hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

        (2) the information contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of National Bankshares, Inc.



/s/ JAMES G. RAKES
-------------------
James G. Rakes
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date: October 29, 2014

From: David Cole, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

To: Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0734

Subject: EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Meeting with

Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association (HPBA) and Western States Air Resources 

Council (WESTAR) - Proposed Standards of Performance for New Residential 

Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced Air Furnaces, and 

New Residential Masonry Heaters

On October 28, 2014, HPBA and WESTAR, at their request, met with Cynthia Giles, EPA 

OECA Assistant Administrator and her staff. The purpose of the meeting was for HPBA and 

WESTAR to stress the importance of OECA’s role in providing strong leadership and oversight 

of the wood heater testing and certification program for compliance with the NSPS as the 

Agency continues to develop the final rule. 

Attending the conference call were—

HPBA: Jack Goldman, President and CEO

WESTAR: Dan Johnson, Executive Director

EPA/OECA: Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator; Sheri Wilson, Deputy Assistant 

Administrator; Lisa Lund, Director, Office of Compliance (OC); Betsy 

Smidinger, Deputy Director, OC; Rick Duffy, Deputy Director, Monitoring 

Assistance and Media Programs Division/OC; Julius Banks, Air Branch Chief,

MAMPD/OC; Rafael Sanchez MAMPD/OC

EPA/OAQPS: Gil Wood (by phone)
#### § 1253.600 Notice of covered programs.

Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the programs covered by these Title IX regulations. Each such Federal agency shall periodically republish the notice of covered programs to reflect changes in covered programs. Copies of this notice also shall be made available upon request to the Federal agency's office that enforces Title IX.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

          - 36 CFR Parts 212, 261, and 295 
          - RIN 0596—AB67 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; extension of public comment period. 

# SUMMARY:

                        On March 3, 2000, in Part III, of the                         **Federal Register**                        , the Forest Service published a proposed rule revising regulations concerning the development, use, maintenance, and management of the national forest transportation system (65 FR 11680). A number of organizations have requested an extension of the public comment period. In considering these requests, the agency has determined that the public initially had difficulty obtaining a copy of the proposed rule and accompanying documents. Additionally, the agency has concluded that a limited extension will not impede adoption of the final rule. Therefore, the agency is extending the comment period for 15 calendar days. Because the proposed rule was accompanied by a related proposed administrative policy, the agency, by separate notice in today's                         **Federal Register**                        , also is extending the comment period on the proposed policy for 15 calendar days.                     

# DATES:

Comments must be received in writing by May 17, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send written comments to USDA, CAET, Attention: Roads, P. O. Box 221090, Salt Lake City, UT 84122. 

Send comments electronically to roads/wo_caet-slc@fs.fed.us. 

All comments received, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying at Forest Service, 201 14th Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20250. Persons wishing to inspect the comments are encouraged to call 202-205-1400 to facilitate building entrance. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heidi Valetkevitch, Office of Communication, 202-205-0914. 

Dated: April 24, 2000. 

James R. Furnish, 

Deputy Chief, National Forest System. 

[FR Doc. 00-10656 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 8

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         The following is a list of our subsidiaries including jurisdiction of
incorporation and our ownership interest.

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                                               <C>
International Utility Structures (Luxembourg) S.A.R.L. - (Luxembourg)                             100%
IUS Holding Inc.  - (US)                                                                          100%
IUSRD (Ireland) Ltd. - (Ireland)                                                                  100%
International Utility Structures (Arkansas) Inc. - (US)                                           100%
International Utility Structures (Kansas), Inc. - (US)                                            100%
International Utility Structures (U.S.) Inc. - (US)                                               100%
IUS France S.A.S. - (France)                                                                      100%
Petitjean S.A.S. - (France)                                                                       100%
Petitjean Industries S.A.S. - (France)                                                            100%
Petitjean Services - (France)                                                                     100%
Petitjean Espana - (Spain)                                                                        100%
Petitjean GmbH - (Germany)                                                                        100%
Petitjean & Company (United Kingdom)                                                              100%
Petitjean & Company Estenstion Belge S.A. - (Belgium)                                             100%
Petitjean Aluminium Europe - (Belgium)                                                            100%
Petitjean Nederland BV- (Netherlands)                                                             100%
Petitjean Chile Ltd. - (Chile)                                                                    100%
Petitjean Asia Pacific Private Ltd. - (Singapore)                                                 100%
</TABLE>
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ridgewood Electric Power
Trust V (the “Trust”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each
of the undersigned officers of the Trust hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.








/s/
      Randall D. HolmesName:
            Randall
      D. HolmesTitle:
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Dated:
            April 9,
      2009








/s/
      Jeffrey H. StrasbergName:
            Jeffrey
      H. StrasbergTitle:
            Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated:
            April 9,
      2009
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 364

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require criminal background 

checks on drivers providing Medicaid medical assistance transportation 

services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2003

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require 

criminal background checks on drivers providing Medicaid medical assistance transportation services.

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

3 SECTION 1. REQUIRING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS 

4 ON DRIVERS PROVIDING MEDICAID MEDICAL 

5 ASSISTANCE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1903(i) of the Social Se7 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended by inserting 

8 after paragraph (11) the following new paragraph: 
2

•HR 364 IH 

1 ‘‘(12) with respect to any amount expended for 

2 medical transportation services (other than ambu3 lance and similar emergency medical transportation 

4 services) provided by an entity under a contract with 

5 the State unless there are assurances, satisfactory to 

6 the Secretary, that the entity has satisfactory ar7 rangements to assure that—

8 ‘‘(A) any driver providing such services has 

9 undergone an appropriate criminal background 

10 check with an appropriate State law enforce11 ment authority, which check shall include a 

12 matching of name and fingerprints of the driver 

13 against the information maintained by the Fed14 eral Bureau of Investigation in its National 

15 Crime Information Center; and 

16 ‘‘(B) any individual who has been identi17 fied as having been convicted of any felony in18 volving violence against any individual or any 

19 felony relating to the use, distribution, or man20 ufacture of alcohol or drugs is not eligible to 

21 provide such services;’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 subsection (a) applies to transportation services furnished 

24 on or after the first date of the first month that begins 
3

•HR 364 IH 

1 more than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

2 Act.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3679 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 3679

   To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States with 
                       respect to rattan webbing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2003

  Mr. Israel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States with 
                       respect to rattan webbing.

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

SECTION 1. RATTAN WEBBING.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 46 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States is amended by striking subheading 4601.91.20 and 
inserting the following new subheading and superior text thereto, with 
such superior text having the same degree of indentation as the article 
description for subheading 4601.91.40:
      

``                       Of one or more of
                          the materials
                          bamboo, rattan,
                          willow, or wood:
        4601.91.25         Rattan cane        Free                                      20%
                            webbing.........
        4601.91.30         Other............  6.6%                 Free (A, CA, E, IL,  45%
                                                                    J, MX) 1.6% (JO)                           '
                                                                                                              '.

    (b) Staged Rate Reductions.--Any staged reduction of a rate of duty 
proclaimed by the President before the date of the enactment of this 
Act, that--
            (1) would take effect on or after such date of enactment, 
        and
            (2) would, but for the amendment made by subsection (a), 
        apply to subheading 4601.91.20 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States,
applies to the corresponding rate of duty set forth in subheading 
4601.91.30 of such Schedule (as added by subsection (a)).
                                 <all>
```