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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7839

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. BLAIR R. JONES, JR., Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00115-IMK-JSK; 1:05-cr-00095-IMK-1)

Submitted: January 21, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Blair R. Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Blair R. Jones, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is 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 dispositive 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).

The district court concluded that Jones’ claims challenging the validity of his conviction were barred by the appellate waiver provision in his plea agreement. However, the waiver applies only to claims challenging Jones’ sentence. Nevertheless, although the district court committed a procedural error by relying on the waiver provision to dismiss Jones’ § 2255 motion, our independent review of the record confirms that, on their merits, the claims Jones raised in his motion do

23 not substantially show that his constitutional rights were infringed. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ motion for a certificate of appealability and all pending motions 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
J. 

2 

J. 

Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

Cherry 

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, RIDGE 

HOUSE INC.; BEV "UNKNOWN" 

COUNSELOR (LADC) THE RIDGE 

HOUSE INC.; DANIEL HIGHT, 

COUNSELOR (LADC) THE RIDGE 

HOUSE INC.; WAITER "UNKNOWN" 

A.K.A. "C.J." HOUSE MANAGER, THE 

RIDGE HOUSE INC.; GREG COX, 

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, STATE OF 

NEVADA; GREG SMITH, WARDEN, 

WARM SPRINGS COBB. CENTER, 

N.D.O.C. STATE OF NV.; CATHERINE 

CORTEZ MASTO, ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, STATE OF NEVADA; AND 

BRIAN SANDOVAL, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondents. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This is a proper person petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner challenges the revocation of his parole and claims that his due 

process rights were violated at the revocation hearing. Without deciding 

upon the merits of any claims raised in the documents submitted in this 

matter, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. A challenge to the 

revocation of parole should be raised in a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus filed in the district court in the first instance. See NRS 34.360; 

NRAP 22. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

/ ,J. 

Hardesty 

(0) 0147A ey, 
cc: Keith Shannon Hoover 

Attorney General/Carson City 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 719W
<TABLE> <S> <C>






<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                              0000797917
<NAME>                             RAYTECH CORP
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                         U.S. DOLLARS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1

<CASH>                             9,766
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      34,589
<ALLOWANCES>                       1,616
<INVENTORY>                        32,869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   83,188
<PP&E>                             175,818
<DEPRECIATION>                     97,520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     186,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              69,138
<BONDS>                            0
<COMMON>                           5,583
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         70,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       186,934
<SALES>                            195,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   195,649
<CGS>                              148,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      148,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    20,690
<INCOME-TAX>                       6,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                13,205
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       13,205
<EPS-BASIC>                      3.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                      3.76





</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.1* 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 the Annual Report of Las Vegas From Home.com Entertainment Inc., (the Company)
on Form 20F for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), We, Jacob H. Kalpakian, the President and C.E.O.of
the Company, and Bedo H. Kalpakian, Chairman and C.F.O. of the Company certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
our 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. Jacob H. Kalpakian
    
    Bedo H. KalpakianJacob H.Kalpakian
    
    Bedo H. KalpakianPresident & C.E.O.
    
    Chairman & C.F.O.
 May 31, 2005 - 1 -
Martin, Michael (OST) 

From: Fred Corey [fcorey@micnnac-nsn.gov] 

Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:17 PM 

TTMENTOF 

•iSPORmnON 

To: EAS(OST) ' ' '.i-'T OFERATiOMS 

Subject: Presque Isle, Maine EAS Comments 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

I am writing to offer connments on the selection of an Essential Air Service (EAS) carrier for the Northern 

Maine Regional Airport in Presque Isle, Maine. I regularly utilize the Northern Maine Regional Airport for 

business travel throughout the United States, and I complete at least 10-15 roundtrip flights from/to 

Presque Isle per year. Please note that for the Northern Maine Regional Airport, the only current 

destination is Boston, Massachusetts, and that is expected to continue with the selection of a new EAS 

carrier. 

Of primary concern to me is codesharing by the selected carrier. The current EAS carrier for Presque Isle 

(Colgan Air) codeshares with U.S. Airways, which reduces the cost of roundtrip airfare for destinations 

beyond Boston, ensures that baggage is automatically transferred to the next flight segment, and provides 

the opportunity to earn frequent flier miles and other benefits for travel beyond Boston. If the selected 

EAS carrier for Presque Isle does not codeshare with a major airline, I believe that ticket prices will not be 

economical (as compared to the next closest airport in Bangor, Maine), it will result in additional baggage 

fees and will require passengers to manually pick-up and transfer their luggage to the next flight segment 

(this will create potential delays and difficulties in scheduling connecting flights), and it will severely 

reduce or eliminate the opportunity to earn frequent flier miles and other travel benefits. 

Based on the above-described codesharing concern, I strongly urge the EAS selection committee to 

consider codesharing as a selection criteria. If this is not possible, I respectfully request that the EAS 

selection team negotiate and/or urge the selected EAS carrier to codeshare with a major airline (in its 

proposal, Peninsula Airways mentions codesharing with Alaska Airlines, but Alaska Airlines only provides 

very limited service outside of the state of Alaska). If codesharing with a major airline (other than Alaska 

Airlines) is not planned by the selected EAS carrier, I will likely discontinue travel from the Northern Maine 

Regional Airport and instead travel from the next closest airport in Bangor, Maine. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the selection of an EAS carrier for Northern Maine Regional 

Airport and for considering my comments. If you have any questions concerning my .comments, or need 

additional information or clarification, please contact me at your convenience. 

Sincerely, 

Fred Corey. 

Fred E. Corey 

Environmental Director 

Aroostook Band of Micmacs 

8 Northern Road 

Presque Isle, ME 04769 

Ph: (207) 764-7765 

www.micmacenvironmental.com
§ 25.867 Fire protection: other components. ( a ) Surfaces to the rear of the nacelles, within one nacelle diameter of the nacelle centerline, must be at least fire-resistant.
( b ) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to tail surfaces to the rear of the nacelles that could not be readily affected by heat, flames, or sparks coming from a designated fire zone or engine compartment of any nacelle.
[Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5676, Apr. 8, 1970]
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3740 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 563
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                               H. R. 3740

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2004

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                              June 7, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 223 South Main Street in Roxboro, North Carolina, as the ``Oscar 
                  Scott Woody Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 223 
South Main Street in Roxboro, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Oscar Scott Woody Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Oscar Scott Woody Post 
Office Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 563

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3740

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 223 South Main Street in Roxboro, North Carolina, as the ``Oscar 
                  Scott Woody Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 7, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### § 25.1391 Minimum intensities in the horizontal plane of forward and rear position lights.

Each position light intensity must equal or exceed the applicable values in the following table:

| Dihedral angle (light included) | Angle from right or left of longitudinal axis, measured from dead ahead | Intensity (candles) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *L* and *R* (forward red and green) | 0° to 10° 10° to 20° 20° to 110° | 40 30 5 |
| A (rear white) | 110° to 180° | 20 |
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). A H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T TI M OTHY HU GH HA LL , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. D . G . A D A M S, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 06- 16904 D . C. N o . CV - 0 2 - 0 1 1 8 7 - D FL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D a vi d F . L e vi , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d F IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erT im o th y H u g h H all ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED JAN 07 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA H / Res ea r ch 06- 16904

H a l l c ont e nds tha thi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n the pr os e c ut or st at ed i n the j ury’ s pre se nce thatH al l “ l i ed” abo uthi s i ncom e on a l oan ap p lic a tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyd e te rm in e d th a t th e p r o s e c u to r ’s s ta te m e n t d id no t“ so i nfec t [] the tri al w i th u nfai rnes s a s t o m ake the re sul t i ng conv i ct i on a deni al of du e proces s. ” D arde n v . W ai nw r i ght , 477 U . S . 168, 181 ( 1986) . F urthe r , the s ta te c o u rt’s c o n c lu s io n th a t a n yp o te n tia l 

### p re ju di ce wa s cure db y th e tri alco urt ’s admoniti on to th e j ury

wa s not contrary

to, or an unreasonable appli cation of, cl earl y est ab li sh edfed erallaw. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d)(1 ). AF F I RME D.
### BEFOR E TH E DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N WASHINGTON , D.C .
Agreements Adopte d b

yth e Traffi c Conference s o f th e Internationa l Ai r Transpor t Associatio n OST-2010-001 9

APPLICATIO N FO R APPROVA L O F AGREEMENTS

B Y TH E INTERNATIONA L AI R TRANSPOR T ASSOCIATIO N lAT A AGREEMEN

T APPROVE

D & IMMUNIZE

D A . DOCKE T QST - / D - <^^/ f

KC ^ DAT

E /HlHs ^ 6 . 7^/i ^ Thi s approva

l an dgran t of antitrus t immunit y i s subject, wher

e applicable , t o condition s previousl

y imposed . Thi s actio n i s effectiv

e afte r 7 day s unles s apetition i s filedunde r 1 4 CFl i 385.3 0 o

r arevie w i s undertake

n o n the Department' s ow

n motion . I n vie w ofxhe.agreement' s noncontrovcrsia ! nati'r e an dthe avaiicbiiit

y o f th e abov/proiedure , the^i-da y oeriodi n 1 4 CF R303.42 i s waived .



### 2 0 Januar y201 0 Communication s wit h respec t t o thi s documen t shoul d b e sen t t o Douglas E . Lavi n Regiona l Vic e Presiden t - Nort h America Intemationa l Ai rTranspor

t Associatio n lAT AWashington , 60 1 Pennsylvani a Avenue , N.W . Suit e 30 0 - Nort h Buildin g Washingto n DC 2000 4
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CO-934-5700; COC62391, COC62392, COC62431] 

Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas leases, COC62391, COC62392, and COC62431, for lands in San Miguel and Montrose counties, Colorado, were timely filed and were accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date of termination. 

The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. 

                    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate leases                           ( print page 25940)                        COC62391, COC62392, and COC62431 effective December 1, 1999, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                 

Kathleen L. Toth, 

Land Law Examiner, Oil and Gas Lease Maintenance. 

[FR Doc. 00-11135 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
Editorial Note on Part 183
Editorial Note: For miscellaneous amendments to cross references in this part 183, see Amdt. 183-1, 31 FR 9211, July 6, 1966.

§ 183.23 Pilot examiners. Any pilot examiner, instrument rating examiner, or airline transport pilot examiner may— ( a ) As authorized in his designation, accept applications for flight tests necessary for issuing pilot certificates and ratings under this chapter;
( b ) Under the general supervision of the appropriate local Flight Standards Inspector, conduct those tests;
( c ) In the discretion of the appropriate local Flight Standards Inspector, issue temporary pilot certificates and ratings to qualified applicants; and
( d ) Accept an application for a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and verify the identity of the applicant in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
[Docket 1151, 27 FR 4951, May 26, 1962, as amended by Docket FAA-2015-0150, Amdt. 183-16, 81 FR 42214, June 28, 2016]
##### 



Exhibit 31.1* CERTIFICATIONS CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Bedo H. Kalpakian, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20F (2004) of Las Vegas From Home.com
Entertainment Inc. 2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report; 3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report; 4.   The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
prepared;  b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date);
and  c)
    
    presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5.   The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and  b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal controls; and 6.   The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whether or
not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: May 31, 2005 Bedo H. Kalpakian Bedo H. KalpakianChief Financial Officer
```
[House Report 112-32]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


112th Congress                                             Rept. 112-32
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 2

======================================================================



 
                          NSP TERMINATION ACT

                                _______
                                

 March 14, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

         Mr. Bachus, from the Committee on Financial Services, 
                        submitted the following

                          SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

                        [To accompany H.R. 861]

                     REASON FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT

    This supplemental report shows the updated information for 
the Committee Consideration of H.R. 861, as reported, (H. Rept. 
111-32):

                        COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

    The Committee on Financial Services met in open session on 
March 9, 2011 and ordered H.R. 861, the NSP Termination Act, as 
amended, favorably reported to the House by a recorded vote of 
31 yeas and 24 nays, (Record vote No. FC-15).

                                  

```