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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7130

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT KENNEDY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, District Judge.

(CR-01-725-NKM; CA-05-302-7)

Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 28, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Kennedy, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott,

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Kennedy, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Kennedy 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
§ 101.1 Applicability. ( a ) This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United States, of the following: ( 1 ) Except as provided for in § 101.7, any balloon that is moored to the surface of the earth or an object thereon and that has a diameter of more than 6 feet or a gas capacity of more than 115 cubic feet.
( 2 ) Except as provided for in § 101.7, any kite that weighs more than 5 pounds and is intended to be flown at the end of a rope or cable.
( 3 ) Any amateur rocket except aerial firework displays.
( 4 ) Except as provided for in § 101.7, any unmanned free balloon that— ( i ) Carries a payload package that weighs more than four pounds and has a weight/size ratio of more than three ounces per square inch on any surface of the package, determined by dividing the total weight in ounces of the payload package by the area in square inches of its smallest surface;
( ii ) Carries a payload package that weighs more than six pounds;
( iii ) Carries a payload, of two or more packages, that weighs more than 12 pounds; or
( iv ) Uses a rope or other device for suspension of the payload that requires an impact force of more than 50 pounds to separate the suspended payload from the balloon.
( b ) For the purposes of this part, a *gyroglider* attached to a vehicle on the surface of the earth is considered to be a kite.
[Doc. No. 1580, 28 FR 6721, June 29, 1963, as amended by Amdt. 101-1, 29 FR 46, Jan. 3, 1964; Amdt. 101-3, 35 FR 8213, May 26, 1970; Amdt. 101-8, 73 FR 73781, Dec. 4, 2008; 74 FR 38092, July 31, 2009; Amdt. 101-9, 81 FR 42208, June 28, 2016; Amdt. Nos. 101-10, 85 FR 79826, Dec. 11, 2020]
# C_2018436EN.01005102.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/51

---

Order of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA

(Case T-33/18) (1)

((Action for annulment and for damages - Public service contracts - Administrative appeal before the Commission - Purely confirmatory act - Deadline for bringing an appeal - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 436/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Pracsis SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) and Conceptexpo Project (Wavre, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, A Katsimerou and I. Rubene, acting as Agents), Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (initially represented by: H. Monet and A. Kisylyczko, then by: H. Monet and N. Durand, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2017 dismissing the administrative appeal brought against the decisions of EACEA of 17 July and 11 August 2017 and, ‘in so far as is necessary’, the annulment of those decisions of EACEA and its ‘decision’ to sign a contract with the tenderer ranked in first position, inasmuch as those decisions rank the tender of the applicants’ consortium in second position according to the cascade mechanism in the call for tenders EACEA/2017/01, regarding event organisation services and promotional campaigns in the audiovisual field and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants allegedly suffered due to those decisions.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Pracsis SPRL and Conceptexpo Project are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission and by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Pracsis SPRL and Conceptexpo Project are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission and by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA).

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.

---
Opinion filed Sep tember 1 0, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

___________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 00 74 -CV

____ ____ __ JAM ES D E MO SS, Ap pellant

V. CH ARLES C OTHR ON ET A L, Ap pellees On App eal from the 259th Distric t Court

Jones County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20752

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N I n Apr il 2 00 5, Jame s D e Mo ss s ue d Co rr e c tio na l Off ic e r Cha rl e s Co thr on , Ca

pta in R onnie Wil liams, Property Offic er Janay Wil liams, Serg eant De nis Hawkins, Corre ctional Off icer Patrick Martin, Corre ctional Off

icer Donald D av is, Assistant W arde n Stacey J ackson, A ssistant W arde n Cary Coo k, and

Ma ilr oo m Su

pe rv iso r A mand a

Mc Cr e e fo r v ari ou s n e g lig e nc e , a bu se , to rt , reta liation, and civil rig hts claims. On Fe bruar y 23, 2009, appellee s filed a motion for dismissal for want of pr osecution pursua nt to T EX . R. C IV . P
. 165a. The trial court g rante d the motion and dis mis se d th e c a se . We a ff ir m.2

Appellant has f

iled various motions, responses, doc uments, and a b ri ef i n which he challeng es the dismissal of his claims. He a rg ues that the trial court violated his fre edom of spee ch. He a lso contends that a motion to rec use wa s pending befor e the trial court and, there fore , that the de lay of f our y e ars wa s d

ue to t he tr ia l c ourt ’s ina c tio n n ot t o h is a c tio ns . T he re c or d b e fo re thi s c ourt do e s n ot s up po rt

any of a pp e lla nt’ s c on te nti on s. All of appe llant’s arguments have been considere d. Eac h is overrule d. The orde r of the tr ial court is af firmed.
PER C URI AM September 10, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Statement of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18
U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Knight Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Steven
Bisgay, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    STEVEN BISGAYName:

Steven BisgayTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

February 27, 2009




This certification
accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
§ 119.41 Amending a certificate. ( a ) The Administrator may amend any certificate issued under this part if— ( 1 ) The Administrator determines, under 49 U.S.C. 44709 and part 13 of this chapter, that safety in air commerce and the public interest requires the amendment; or
( 2 ) The certificate holder applies for the amendment and the responsible Flight Standards office determines that safety in air commerce and the public interest allows the amendment.
( b ) When the Administrator proposes to issue an order amending, suspending, or revoking all or part of any certificate, the procedure in § 13.19 of this chapter applies.
( c ) When the certificate holder applies for an amendment of its certificate, the following procedure applies: ( 1 ) The certificate holder must file an application to amend its certificate with the responsible Flight Standards office at least 15 days before the date proposed by the applicant for the amendment to become effective, unless the administrator approves filing within a shorter period; and
( 2 ) The application must be submitted to the responsible Flight Standards office in the form and manner prescribed by the Administrator.
( d ) When a certificate holder seeks reconsideration of a decision from the responsible Flight Standards office concerning amendments of a certificate, the following procedure applies: ( 1 ) The petition for reconsideration must be made within 30 days after the certificate holder receives the notice of denial; and
( 2 ) The certificate holder must petition for reconsideration to the Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.
[Docket No. 28154, 60 FR 65913, Dec. 20, 1995, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 119-19, 83 FR 9172, Mar. 5, 2018]
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10405

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Rosalba Sotelo, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CR-26-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Rosalba Sotelo has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Sotelo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow 

us to make a fair evaluation of Sotelo’s claim of ineffective assistance of 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 13, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10405 Document: 00517000070 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2023
No. 23-10405

2

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to 

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein, as well as Sotelo’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-10405 Document: 00517000070 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2023
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In Re: Financial Oversight & Management Board

for Puerto Rico

as representative of

3:17-BK-3283 (LTS)

PROMESA Title III 

(Jointly Administrated)

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al.

Debtors

NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE PLEADING

(Notificación de Documento Defectuoso)

Filer: Marisol Collado Ramos

The Clerk of Court has received your pleading May 5, 2023. However, the deficiencies listed 

below have prevented us from filing the same in the case docket. You must submit a corrected 

pleading if you want it to form part of the record.

La Secretaría del Tribunal recibió su escrito el 5 de mayo del 2023. No obstante, las deficiencias 

que abajo se señalan nos impiden aceptarlo y entrarlo en el sumario del caso. Debe usted 

someter un escrito debidamente corregido si quiere que el mismo forme parte del expediente.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24158 Filed:05/08/23 Entered:05/08/23 10:03:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE PLEADING

(Notificación de Documento Defectuoso)

3:17-BK-3283 (LTS)

Page 2 of 2

1 Pleading is illegible. L.Civ.R. 10

(El escrito radicado es ilegible o no cumple con la R.L.Civ. 10)

2 X

Lacks proper signature. Documents presented to the court in paper require 

a handwritten signature. L.Civ.R. 11

(Documento no está firmado adecuadamente. Los documentos sometidos en papel tienen que estar firmados a 

mano. R.L.Civ. 11)

3

PROMESA Cover Sheet for Adversary Proceedings (DPR Modified PROMESA 

B1040) was not included. L.Bkcy.R. 7003-1 

http://www.prd.uscourts.gov/promesa/forms-attorneys

(No se incluyó la Hoja de Trámite para Casos Adversarios (DPR Modified PROMESA B1040). 

4

Failure to pay the filing fee in the amount of $402.00. See, L.Cv.R. 3(a).

Payment shall be made within 24 hours in person at the Clerk’s Office U.S. 

District Court with copy of the complaint /notice of removal. (Incumplimiento con el 

pago de la cuota de radicación por la cantidad de $402.00. El pago debe hacerse personalmente dentro de 24 horas 

en la Secretaría del Tribunal Federal de Distrito adjuntando una copia de la demanda / notificación de remoción.)

5

The attached document is non-compliant with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(A) and 

L. Cv. R. 5(a). Counsel is required to file the document electronically via 

CM/ECF.

6 X

Other: Documents depict claimant’s Social Security Number in noncompliance with FRCP 5.2 and FRBP 9037. 

(Otro:) Documentos muestran el número de seguro social de la reclamante contrario a FRCP 5.2 y FRBP 9037. 

Date: May 8, 2023

ADA I. GARCÍA-RIVERA, ESQ.

Clerk of Court

 By: s/ Carmen Tacoronte

Carmen Tacoronte

Deputy Clerk

sc: filer with original filing

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24158 Filed:05/08/23 Entered:05/08/23 10:03:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

The Honorable E. Christopher Abruzzo, Acting Secretary 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Rachel Carson State Office Building 

P.O. Box 2063 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-2063 

v pj, ~kt.AJ_./1 Dear Secretar/ __ ruzzo: 

By letter and enclosures dated July 23,2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection (PADEP) submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a:n annual ambient 

air monitoring network plan in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR Section 58 -

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. Based on our review, EPA hereby approves PADEP's July 23,2013 

annual ambient air monitoring network plan on the basis that the plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

Part58.10. 

Additionally, 40 CFR Section 58.11(c) requires any changes to the air monitoring network or 

design of the following air monitoring systems be approved by the EPA Administrator: 

a) Photochemical As~essment Monitoring Systems (P AMS) 

b) Particulate Matter Speciation Trends Network (STN) 

c) The National Core Monitoring Network (NCore) 

EPA determined that PADEP's July 23,2013 annual ambient air monitoring network plan does 

not require approval from the EPA Administrator because there were no changes to any of the air 

monitoring systems listed above. 

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact 

Mrs. Laura Mohollen, EPA's Pennsylvania Liaison, at (215) 814-3295. For questions regarding this 

approval action, your staff may contact Ms. Diana Esher, Director, Air Protection Division, at 

(215) 814-2706. 

cc: Ms. Joyce Epps, PADEP 

Sincerely, 

/)J. hi lj_,4 

_/--J/Itc- ti I -'\ f~ Shawn M. Garvin 

Regional Administrator 

,. 

'.J Printed on I 00% recycled/recyclable paper with I 00% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:See attachment
Presidential Documents

24851

Federal Register

Vol. 65, No. 82

Thursday, April 27, 2000

Title 3—

The President

Memorandum of April 19, 2000

Report to the Congress Regarding Conditions in Burma and

U.S. Policy Toward Burma

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the requirements set forth under the heading ‘‘Policy Toward

Burma’’ in section 570(d) of the FY 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriations

Act, as contained in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public

Law 104–208), a report is required every 6 months following enactment

concerning:

1) progress toward democratization in Burma;

2) progress on improving the quality of life of the Burmese people, including progress on market reforms, living standards, labor standards, use

of forced labor in the tourism industry, and environmental quality; and

3) progress made in developing a comprehensive, multilateral strategy

to bring democracy to and improve human rights practices and the quality

of life in Burma, including the development of a dialogue between the

State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and democratic opposition

groups in Burma.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit the report fulfilling

these requirements to the appropriate committees of the Congress and to

arrange for publication of this memorandum in the 

œ–

Federal Register.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, April 19, 2000.

[FR Doc. 00–10707

Filed 4–26–00; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
#### COHEN, GOLDMAN & CO. v. UNITED STATES

[77 C.Cls. 713; 290 U.S. 681]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by Supreme Court November 6, 1933.
Editorial Note on Part 745
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 745 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 745.9-1 Trust accounts. ( a ) For purposes of this section, “trust” refers to an irrevocable trust.
( b ) All trust interests (as defined in § 745.2(d)(4)), for the same beneficiary, deposited in an account and established pursuant to valid trust agreements created by the same settlor (grantor) shall be added together and insured up to the SMSIA in the aggregate, separately from other accounts of the trustee of such trust funds or the settlor or beneficiary of such trust arrangements.
( c ) This section applies to trust interests created in Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, formerly Education IRAs, established in connection with section 530 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 530).
[51 FR 37560, Oct. 23, 1986, as amended at 65 FR 34924, June 1, 2000; 68 FR 75114, Dec. 30, 2003; 71 FR 14636, Mar. 23, 2006]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6550

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WAYNE EDWARDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-6578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MELVIN CURTIS COX,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-88-181, CA-96-3105-7-17, CA-96-2934-7-17)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997
2

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Edwards, Melvin Curtis Cox, Appellants Pro Se. Alfred William

Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court's orders denying

their motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Edwards, Nos. CR-88-181; CA96-3105-7-17 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 1997); United States v. Cox, Nos. CR88-181; CA-96-2934-7-17 (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 1997). 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
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0081. JEFFREY BRYAN BIRDSONG v. CATHERINE BARNETT.

Jeffrey Bryan Birdsong has filed an application for discretionary appeal from

the trial court’s order holding him in contempt for violating a Stalking Protective

Order. The order, however, is subject to direct appeal.

Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), a party must follow the discretionary

appeal procedure to obtain review in a domestic relations case, including those that

involve family violence. See Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461 (1) (510 SE2d 810)

(1999). “[T]he term ‘family violence’ means . . . acts between past or present

spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents

and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons living or

formerly living in the same household[.]” OCGA § 19-13-1.

Here, the trial court’s order is titled “Order Concerning Motion for Contempt

– Family Violence.” However, that title is not controlling, as it is well established

that substance controls over nomenclature. See, e.g., Giles v. State, 257 Ga. App. 65

(2) (570 SE2d 375) (2002). Because this case concerns Birdsong’s actions toward

his neighbor, with whom he does not have a familial relationship, it is not a family

violence case within the meaning of OCGA § 19-13-1, nor a domestic relations case

within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). Birdsong, therefore, was not required

to follow the discretionary appeal procedures to obtain appellate review.

We will grant an otherwise timely application for discretionary appeal if the

lower court’s order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly,

this application is hereby GRANTED, andBirdsong shall have ten days fromthe date

of this order to file a notice of appeal with the trial court. If he has already filed a

October 27, 2014
notice of appeal in the trial court, he need not file a second notice. The clerk of the

trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to

the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/27/2014