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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7215

JOHNNIE PETTAWAY, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GOVERNOR; ATTORNEY GENERAL; 

COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, 

 Respondents – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00481-JCC-IDD) 

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Johnnie Pettaway, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Johnnie Pettaway seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Pettaway 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
§ 125.403 Flight release form. ( a ) The flight release may be in any form but must contain at least the following information concerning each flight: ( 1 ) Company or organization name.
( 2 ) Make, model, and registration number of the airplane being used.
( 3 ) Date of flight.
( 4 ) Name and duty assignment of each crewmember.
( 5 ) Departure airport, destination airports, alternate airports, and route.
( 6 ) Minimum fuel supply (in gallons or pounds).
( 7 ) A statement of the type of operation (e.g., IFR, VFR).
( b ) The airplane flight release must contain, or have attached to it, weather reports, available weather forecasts, or a combination thereof.
###### Editorial Note on Part 702

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 702 appear at 84 FR 1606, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 702.103 Applicability of risk-based capital measures.

For purposes of § 702.102, a credit union is defined as “complex” and a risk-based capital measure is applicable only if the credit union's quarter-end total assets exceed five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000), as reflected in its most recent Call Report. A complex credit union may calculate its risk-based capital measure either by using the risk-based capital ratio under § 702.104(a) through (c), or, for a qualifying complex credit union opting into the CCULR framework, by using the CCULR framework under § 702.104(d).

[86 FR 72805, Dec. 23, 2021]
#### STANDARD OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES

[77 C.Cls. 205; 290 U.S. 632]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court October 9, 1933.
Exhibit 10.1

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is dated as of April
23, 2004, and is by and among STANLEY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., a Delaware
corporation (the "Borrower"); and SOUTHTRUST BANK, an Alabama banking
corporation (the "Lender").


                                    RECITALS

The Lender has made a certain credit facility (the "Loan") available to the
Borrower pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in that certain Credit
Agreement dated as of August 29, 2003 between the Borrower and the Lender.

In accordance with Section 2.12 of the Credit Agreement, the Borrower has
submitted to the Bank, and the Bank has received, a timely request that the
Lender extend the Initial Maturity Date (as defined in the Loan Agreement) to
August 29, 2006.

The Lender has agreed to extend the Initial Maturity Date in accordance with
said request.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Borrower and the Lender hereby agree as follows:

         1. Pursuant to the terms of Section 2.12 of the Loan Agreement, the
Lender has agreed to extend the Initial Maturity Date of the Loan by 12 months.
The maturity date of the Loan, and the definition of "Date of Maturity" in the
Loan Agreement, are hereby changed to August 29, 2006.

         2. This Amendment shall be deemed to be contract made under, and for
all purposes shall be construed in accordance with, the laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.

         3. The Borrower hereby acknowledges and agrees that, as of the
effective date hereof, the unpaid principal balance of the Loan is $0 and that
there are no set-offs or defenses against the Loan Agreement or the Note (as
defined in the Loan Agreement). The parties to this Amendment do not intend that
this Amendment be construed as a novation of the Note or the Loan Agreement.
Except as hereby expressly extended and modified, the Note and Loan Agreement
shall otherwise be unchanged, shall remain in full force and effect, and are
hereby expressly approved, ratified and confirmed.



<PAGE>


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused this instrument
to be executed under seal as of the day and year first above written.

STANLEY FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.     [SEAL]


By: /s/ Douglas I. Payne
   ---------------------
Name:   Douglas I. Payne
   ---------------------
Title:  Executive V.P. Finance & Administration
   --------------------------------------------


SOUTHTRUST BANK                             [SEAL]


By: /s/ Mitchell W. Hassell
    ------------------------
Name:   Mitchell W. Hassell
    ------------------------
Title:  Vice President
    ------------------------
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

________________________

No. ACM 40 3 4 0 (f rev)

________________________

UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Christopher N. GRAVES Senior Airman (E-4), U.S. Air Force, Appellant

________________________
Appeal from the United States Air Force Trial Judiciary

Upon Further Review

Decided 17 October 20 23

________________________
Military Judg e : Rebecca E. Schmidt ( pretrial motion); Matthew D. Talcott (pretrial motions); Pilar G. Wennrich (arraignment); Brian C. Mason (trial); Lance R. Smith (remand )

. 1

Sentence : Sentence adjudged on 2 6 May 2022 by GCM convened at Joint
Base Anacostia-Bolling, Washington, District of Columbia

. 2 Sentence entered by military judge on 27 June 2022, and re -entered on 8 September 2023: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 36 months, and reduction to E-1.

For Appellant : Major Jenna M. Arroyo, USAF; Major Jarett Merk

, US AF.

For Appellee : Captain Olivia B. Hoff, USAF; Mary Ellen Payne, Esquire.

Before RICHARDSON

, CADOTTE, and ANNEXSTAD, Appellate Military Judges.

________________________

1 The pretrial motions were p ursuant to Article 30a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 830a

.

2 Appellant was arraigned at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.United States v. Graves

, No. ACM 40 340 (f rev)

2 This is an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent under AFCCA R ule of Practice and Procedure 30 .4.

_______ _______ __________ PE R CU RIAM :
Appellant ’ s case is before us a second time. This case was submitted for our review on its merits without assignment of error. However, i n an earlier opinion, this court remanded the case to the Chief Trial Judge, Air Force Trial Judiciary, for modificatio n of the entry of judgment as noted in our opinion

. United States v. Graves , No. ACM 40340 , 202 3 CCA LEXIS 356 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2 3 Aug . 202 3 ) (per curiam) (unpub. op.)

. On 8 September 202 3 , a detailed military judge issued a corrected copy of the entry of judgment. Appellant’s
case was then re turned to this court.

The corrected entry of judgment complies with our remand order

. The findings and sentence as entered on 8 September 202 3 are correct in law and fact, and no error materially prejudicia l to the substantial rights of Appellant occurred. Articles 59(a) and 66(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859(a), 866(d). Accordingly, the findings and the sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE Clerk of the Court
II 

Calendar No. 689

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3768

[Report No. 108–333] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2004

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AUGUST 25, 2004

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of July 22, 2004, by Mr. 

DOMENICI, without amendment 

AN ACT

To expand the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, 

Florida.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Timucuan Ecological 

5 and Historic Preserve Boundary Revision Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 3768 RS 

1 SEC. 2. REVISION OF BOUNDARY OF TIMUCUAN ECOLOGI2 CAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVE, FLORIDA. 

3 Section 201(a) of Public Law 100–249 (16 U.S.C. 

4 698n) is amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There 

6 is hereby’’ and inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(2) MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARY.—

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In addition to the 

12 land described in paragraph (1), the Preserve 

13 shall include approximately 8.5 acres of land lo14 cated in Nassau County, Florida, as generally 

15 depicted on the map entitled ‘Timucuan Eco16 logical and Historic Preserve American Beach 

17 Adjustment’, numbered 006/80012 and dated 

18 June 2003. 

19 ‘‘(B) DUTIES OF SECRETARY.—The Sec20 retary of the Interior shall—

21 ‘‘(i) revise the boundaries of the Pre22 serve so as to encompass the land de23 scribed in subparagraph (A); and 

24 ‘‘(ii) maintain the map described in 

25 subparagraph (A) on file and available for 
3

•HR 3768 RS 

1 public inspection in the appropriate offices 

2 of the National Park Service.’’. 
Calendar No. 689

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3768

[Report No. 108–333] 

AN ACT

To expand the Timucuan Ecological and Historic 

Preserve, Florida. 

AUGUST 25, 2004

Reported without amendment
#### W. L. Milteer, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a Corporation, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed April 9, 1913.

An order for a final judgment in favor of a defendant, followed by a judgment for costs is not such a final judgment as will support a writ of error.

*358Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Writ of error dismissed.

*And/i'ew*Johnson, for Plaintiff in Error;

*C. B. Robinson,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause is taken up in its regular order for final disposition, and the court finds in the record the following entry after the order of the court overruling the demurrer of plaintiff to the pleas of defendant: “The plaintiff stating that he does not desire to file further pleas herein, it is ordered that final judgment be entered herein in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff pay the costs in this action, *mmc pro tunc*Jan. 29, 1913. Thereupon it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant, the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a, corporation, do have and recover of the plaintiff, the said W. L. Milteer, the sum of Seven and 61/100 Dollars, its costs in this behalf expended.” This is the only judgment purporting to be a final one. This court has several times held that ¡such an entry as this does not constitute a final judgment which will support a writ of error. See Pensacola Bank & Trust Co. v. National Bank of St. Petersburg, 58 Fla. 340, 50 South. Rep. 414; Dallam v. Sanchez, 56 Fla. 779, 47 South. Rep. 871; Blanton v. West Coast R. Co., 58 Fla. 169, 50 South. Rep. 915; Cobb v. Santa Rosa County, 47 Fla. 135, 36 South. Rep. 172; Haynes v. Bramlett, 46 Fla. 348, 35 South. Rep. 3; Hall v. Patterson, 45 Fla. 353, 33 South. Rep. 982.

There being no final judgment the writ of error is hereby dismissed.

All concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 4.7


                             CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF
                            TRUSTMARK CAPITAL TRUST I

               THIS Certificate of Trust of Trustmark Capital Trust I (the
"Trust"), dated as of March 14, 2003, is being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act (12 Del. Code, ss. 3801 et seq.) (the "Act").

               1. Name. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is
Trustmark Capital Trust I.

               2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee
of the Trust in the State of Delaware is Wilmington Trust Company, 1100 North
Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001, Attn: Corporate Trust
Administration.

               3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective
upon filing.

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this
Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act.

                                    WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, as
                                    Delaware Trustee

                                    By: /s/ Mary St. Amand
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Name:  Mary St. Amand
                                    Title: AVP


                                    WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, as
                                    Property Trustee



                                    By: /s/ Mary St. Amand
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Name:  Mary St. Amand
                                    Title: AVP

                                    /s/ Richard Hickson
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Richard Hickson, as Administrative Trustee

                                    /s/ Zach Wasson
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Zach Wasson, as Administrative Trustee

                                    /s/ T. Harris Collier III
                                    -----------------------------
                                    T. Harris Collier III, as Administrative
                                    Trustee
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           26544
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 15281
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     148679
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           28604
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             28850
<LOANS>                                         508312
<ALLOWANCE>                                       5576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  761495
<DEPOSITS>                                      666912
<SHORT-TERM>                                      8499
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               6829
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         13300
<OTHER-SE>                                       65955
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  761495
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  11721
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2569
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   203
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 14493
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                6058
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 106
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             8329
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      140
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   6018
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3472
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2439
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2439
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.53
<LOANS-NON>                                       1443
<LOANS-PAST>                                      2701
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  1033
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  5713
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      319
<RECOVERIES>                                        42
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 5576
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              5576
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTHCOURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400                  -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.		   APPELLANT	

	V.

 OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEE

 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM THE         PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 OF                    TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s [s’]’ “Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s][- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  

	COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-09-329              -CV

MaArRtTiInN BaArRnNeEsS, MaAxXiIeE GaAbBlLeE, and George Persley	APPELLANT	S

aAnNdD GeEoOrRgGeE PeErRsSlLeEyY

	V.

BNnNSsSFfF RrRaAiIlLwWaAyY CcCoOmMpPaAnNyY 	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 348TH          DISTRICT COURT OF TARRNANT                     COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered aaa“Appellant’s’ [s’] “Amended Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  Althought  appellee e BNSF  Railway Company opposes appellants’ motion, , Ii appellee has not filed a notice of appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(c).  Accordingly, Iit is the court’s opinion that a“Appellants’ Amended Motion To Dismiss” the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant[s], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). [OR the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.]

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:    WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  February 17825, 2010
§ 125.221 Icing conditions: Operating limitations. ( a ) No pilot may take off an airplane that has frost, ice, or snow adhering to any propeller, windshield, stabilizing or control surface; to a powerplant installation; or to an airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, flight attitude instrument system, or wing, except that takeoffs may be made with frost under the wing in the area of the fuel tanks if authorized by the FAA.
( b ) No certificate holder may authorize an airplane to take off and no pilot may take off an airplane any time conditions are such that frost, ice, or snow may reasonably be expected to adhere to the airplane unless the pilot has completed the testing required under § 125.287(a)(9) and unless one of the following requirements is met: ( 1 ) A pretakeoff contamination check, that has been established by the certificate holder and approved by the Administrator for the specific airplane type, has been completed within 5 minutes prior to beginning takeoff. A pretakeoff contamination check is a check to make sure the wings and control surfaces are free of frost, ice, or snow.
( 2 ) The certificate holder has an approved alternative procedure and under that procedure the airplane is determined to be free of frost, ice, or snow.
( 3 ) The certificate holder has an approved deicing/anti-icing program that complies with § 121.629(c) of this chapter and the takeoff complies with that program.
( c ) No pilot may fly under IFR into known or forecast light or moderate icing conditions, or under VFR into known light or moderate icing conditions, unless— ( 1 ) The aircraft has functioning deicing or anti-icing equipment protecting each propeller, windshield, wing, stabilizing or control surface, and each airspeed, altimeter, rate of climb, or flight attitude instrument system;
( 2 ) The airplane has ice protection provisions that meet appendix C of this part; or
( 3 ) The airplane meets transport category airplane type certification provisions, including the requirements for certification for flight in icing conditions.
( d ) Except for an airplane that has ice protection provisions that meet appendix C of this part or those for transport category airplane type certification, no pilot may fly an airplane into known or forecast severe icing conditions.
( e ) If current weather reports and briefing information relied upon by the pilot in command indicate that the forecast icing condition that would otherwise prohibit the flight will not be encountered during the flight because of changed weather conditions since the forecast, the restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section based on forecast conditions do not apply.
[45 FR 67235, Oct. 9, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 125-18, 58 FR 69629, Dec. 30, 1993; Amdt. 125-58, 74 FR 62696, Dec. 1, 2009]
230526 EXHIBIT A. APPEARANCE SHEET VERSION MAY 26, 2023 1

EXHIBIT A1

PARTY APPEARANCE SHEET

Name of Party 

ATTORNEY 1 Appearance Method In Person NY or In Person PR 

Name

Law Firm

Email

Phone Number

Docket Entry No. of

Notice of Appearance

ATTORNEY 2 Appearance Method In Person NY or In Person PR

Name

Law Firm

Email

Phone Number

Docket Entry No. of

Notice of Appearance

ADDITIONAL 

ATTORNEY 

OBSERVATION

Complete the below 

information for each 

attorney appearing for 

observation purposes. 

Name

• In Person – NY

• In Person – PR

Law Firm

Email 

Phone Number 

1 This Party Appearance Sheet must be attached to a party in interest’s Informative Motion as 

Exhibit A.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24336-1 Filed:05/26/23 Entered:05/26/23 09:50:07 Desc:

Exhibit A - Appearance Sheet Page 1 of 1