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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6233

WESLEY EDWARD SMITH, III, 

Petitioner – Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(8:11-cv-02033-DCN) 

Submitted: May 3, 2012 Decided: May 16, 2012

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wesley Edward Smith, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Wesley Edward Smith, III, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Smith 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00050

- CR

IN RE JASON MARC NOR TON

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jason Marc Norton has filed a petition for writ of mand amus, requesting this Court

order a district judge in Brazoria County to grant Norton’s motion and order the release

of records so that Norton can pursue an out

- of

- time appeal. There are procedural

problems with Norton’s petition; however, we use Rule 2 to proceed to a timely

disposition. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 2.

This Court has no jurisdiction over proceedings in Brazoria County. See T EX

. G OV ' T

C ODE A NN . § 22.201(k) (West 2004). 1 Accordingly, Norton’s petition is dismissed for want

1 Brazoria County is in the jurisdiction of the 1st and 14th Court s of Appeals. T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN

. §

22.201 (b), (o) (West 2004). Norton’s original appeal was transferred to this Court by a docket equalizationIn re Norton Page 2

of jurisdiction.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 8 , 2017

Do not publish

[OT06]

order which gave this Court jurisdiction of his direct appeal but not any other direct or ancillary proceeding

not related to the enforcement of this Court’s original judgment.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**ALLIANCEGAMING CORPORATION**

**FORM10-Q**

 

**December 31,2003**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alliance Gaming Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Robert L. Saxton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my knowledge:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operation of the Company.

 

Dated:  February 10, 2004

 

 
| /s/ Robert L. Saxton                    |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert L. Saxton                        |
| Executive Vice President, Treasurer and |
| Chief Financial Officer (Principal      |
| Financial and Accounting Officer)       |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4786 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4786

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2000

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 110 Postal Way in Carrollton, Georgia, as the ``Samuel P. Roberts 
                        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 110 
Postal Way in Carrollton, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the 
``Samuel P. Roberts 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 ``Samuel P. Roberts Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### ALFRED SWART, Respondent, v. ROBERT S. LIVINGSTON, Appellant.

*Agency—statement of alleged agent to tim'd person—effect of its admission in evidence.*

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia county in favor of the plaintiff for $186.18 damages and costs, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The only point raised in this case was on the objection to a question put to one Crawford, whether he told the plaintiff, when he • hired him, that he hired him for the defendant. The court *held,*that the admissibility of that evidence depended on Crawford’s authority from the defendant; that is, it depended on his agency. If Crawford was defendant’s agent to hire the plaintiff, then what he said in hiring was admissible as part of the *res gestee;*otherwise not. That Crawford’s agency was a question of fact on which the evidence was conflicting. The defendant might have asked the court to instruct the jury, that if Crawford was not otherwise shown to • be the defendant’s agent to do this hiring, then the statement made by him at the time would have no weight; but no such request was made. The court *held,*that it could not say as matter of law that Crawford was not the defendant’s agent, for the jury must have found that he was; and, therefore, it could not say that there was error.

The judgment and order were affirmed.

*J. B. Longley,*for the appellant.

*R. E. Andrews,*for the respondent.

Opinion by the court.

Present—Learned, P. J., Boardman and James, JJ

Judgment and order affirmed.
Matthew Rodriquez Secre t a ry for En v ironment a l Protection June 16 , 2014 Mr . Jared Blumenfeld Regional Administrator 

# Air Resources Board Mary D. Nichols, Chairman

1001 I Street • P . O . Bo x 2815 Sacramento , California 95812 • www . arb . ca . gov

U . S . Environmental Protection Agency ,

Region 9 · 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Mr. Blumenfeld : Edmund G . Brown Jr. Gove rnor

The Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) is transmitting to the U.S . Envi ronmental Protection Agency (U . S . EPA) the California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report (Report) . The Report demonstrates that California's control strategy for reducing regional haze pollutants and their precursors is effective. As a result, the State ' s 2018 visibility goals have been achieved ahead of schedule at many Class 1 areas and we are on track to meet our longer term goals for improved visibility . The Board approved the Report at a publ ic hearing on May 22 , 2014 . Enclosed is the following documentation , including two hard copies of the following materials , with an exact electronic copy of each : 1. Public notice and transc ript for the ARB Public Hearing to consider approval of the Report ; 2 . ARB Resolution 14- 15 approving the Report for transmittal to the U . S. EPA ; and 3. California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report . If you have any questions, please call Ms . Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, at (916) 322-2739, or have your staff contact Ms . Sylvia Vanderspek , Chief , Air Quality Plann i ng Branch , at (916) 324- 7163. Sincerely , 

# R ¢!!;:fp E xecutive Officer Enclosures cc : See next page .

T h e en ergy chall en ge f ac

ing Calif ornia i s real. E v ery Ca l ifornia n needs t o take immed ia t

e action to reduce energy cons umpt ion. For a l ist o f si mple ways yo u can re duce demand and cut your en e r g

y costs , see o u r website : http ://www . arb . ca . gov . Cal i forni a E nvironm e nta l P rotection Ag e ncy Printed on Recycled PaperMr . Jared Blumenfeld June 16 , 2014 Page 2 cc: (w/o enclosures) Ms. Lynn Terry Deputy Executive Officer Executive Office Ms. Sylvia Vanderspek , Chief A i r Quality Planning Branch Air Quality Planning and Science Division
###### Editorial Note on Part 157

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 157 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 157.142 Letter of acceptance: Inspections.

If the inspections under § 157.140 are passed, the Coast Guard issues to the tank vessel a letter that states that the vessel complies with this subpart.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Women in South Carolina Industries: A Study of Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					,	Best, Ethel L. (Ethel Lombard)					,	Hyde, Elizabeth A. (Elizabeth Adshead), 1876-					 and 	Robinson, Mary V. (Mary Viola). 						*Women in South Carolina Industries: A Study of Hours, Wages, and Working Conditions : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 32*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1923,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5355,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 6.10-1 Issuance of documents and employment of persons aboard vessels.

No person shall be issued a document required for employment on a merchant vessel of the United States nor shall any person be employed on a merchant vessel of the United States unless the Commandant is satisfied that the character and habits of life of such person are such as to authorize the belief that the presence of the individual on board would not be inimical to the security of the United States: *Provided,* That the Commandant may designate categories of merchant vessels to which the foregoing shall not apply.

[E.O. 10352, 17 FR 4624, May 21, 1952]
Dear M s

. Gauvreau :

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing fro m your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015

− 4081 )

. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to
proce ed without this manual and remove closed

- set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov

. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information ), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov vi a e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/18/15 . I f we do not receive the information

, we will close the dock et without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

- 4549

. Sincerely, /S/ Michael Cameron Program Analyst
§ 175.110 Visual distress signals required. ( a ) No person may use a boat 16 feet or more in length, or any boat operating as an uninspected passenger vessel subject to the requirements of 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter C, unless visual distress signals selected from the list in § 175.130 or the alternatives in § 175.135, in the number required, are onboard. Devices suitable for day use and devices suitable for night use, or devices suitable for both day and night use, must be carried.
( b ) Between sunset and sunrise, no person may use a boat less than 16 feet in length unless visual distress signals suitable for night use, selected from the list in § 175.130 or § 175.135, in the number required, are on board.
[CGD 76-183, 44 FR 73024, Dec. 17, 1979, as amended by USCG-1999-5040, 67 FR 34760, May 15, 2002]
#### § 401.63 Radio procedures.

Every vessel shall use the channels of communication in each control sector as listed in the table to this section.

Channels of Communication

| Station | Control sector number | Sector limits | Call in | Work | Listening watch |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Seaway Beauharnois | 1 | C.I.P No. 2 to C.I.P No. 6-7 | Ch. 14 | Ch. 14 | Ch. 14. |
| Seaway Eisenhower | 2 | C.I.P. No. 6-7 to C.I.P. No. 10-11 | Ch. 12 | Ch. 12 | Ch. 12. |
| Seaway Iroquois | 3 | C.I.P. No. 10-11 To Crossover Island | Ch. 11 | Ch. 11 | Ch. 11. |
| Seaway Clayton | 4 | Crossover Island to Cape Vincent | Ch. 13 | Ch. 13 | Ch. 13. |
| Seaway Sodus | 4 | Cape Vincent to Mid Lake Ontario | Ch. 12 | Ch. 12 | Ch. 16. |
| Seaway Newcastle | 5 | Mid Lake Ontario To C.I.P. No. 15 | Ch. 11 | Ch. 11 | Ch. 16. |
| Seaway Welland | 6 | C.I.P. No. 15 to C.I.P. No. 16 | Ch. 14 | Ch. 14 | Ch. 14. |
| Seaway Long Point | 7 | C.I.P. No. 16 to Long Point | Ch. 11 | Ch. 11 | Ch. 16. |

[[75 FR 10690](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/75-FR-10690), Mar. 9, 2010]
#### Satterfield’s Administratrix *vs*Crow.

Error to the Caldwell County Court.

Mill case.

*Vase*139,

*Mills. Writs of error. Heirs.*

Case stated.

Where a proceeding is carried on to cause land to *be*condemned for an-abutment for a mill-dam and the proprietor of the land sought to be condemned dies, it is necessary *to*revive againstthe heirs upon whom, the title to the land devolves. And they alone can prosecute a *554■writ of error for ■failuie to have such revivor.

*553
      *September*21.

■Judge Simpson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an application by the defendant in error., •to the Caldwell County Court, for leave to ei-.ect a water grist mill. He owned the land on one side of the water course and the bed of the struam. The land on the opposite side, against which he-desired to abut his dam, belonged to Elijah Satterfield, to whom he gave the requisite notice of his intended application.

The Court ordered a writ of *ad quod damnum*to issue, which was executed by the Sheriff according to its command. Satterfield died, however, before the return of the inquest. But the Court, notwithstanding his death, without any revivor, and without having made his heirs parties to the proceeding, went on to make a final disposition of the case, and made an .order approving of the inquest and establishing the mill and dam.

It was manifestly erroneous after the death of Satterfield, to proceed with the motion until Satterfield’s heirs were made parties, or at least such steps- were taken for the purpose, as the statute contemplates. The title to the acre of ground, the value of which had been ascertained by the inquest, upon the death of Satterfield, descended to his heirs. They were, therefore, interested in the assessment of its value, and the amount belonged to them. They also, had a right to be heard in opposition to the motion, inasmuch as its successful *554'prosecution might result in divesting them of 'the title to the acre of ground.

*J. Sf W. L. Harlan*for plaintiff:; *-Cates*fox-defendant.

But the writ of- error for the reversal of the order of the County Court, can only be maintained by the heirs. They alone are prejudiced by the proceedings complained of. The personal representative has no interest in the matter, and cannot prosecute a writ of error in her name. There was no judgment for cost, nor any order ■ affecting the administratrix.

Wherefore, this writ of error is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37052-37053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14886]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL-6715-4]


Revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
(IESWTR), the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule 
(Stage 1 DBPR) and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement 
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: Because we received adverse comments, EPA is withdrawing the 
direct final rule regarding the Interim Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule, the Stage 1 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts 
Rule, and the Primacy Rule that published on April 14, 2000 (65 FR 
20304).
    In the direct final rule, we stated that if we received adverse 
comments by May 15, 2000, we would publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register. EPA subsequently received adverse comments. We will 
address those comments in a final rule based

[[Page 37053]]

upon the proposed rule also published on April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20314).
    Because of the degree of public interest in the rule, we are 
reopening the comment period on the proposed rule. For additional 
information, see the document that reopens the comment period, which is 
published in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this issue of the 
Federal Register.

DATES: The direct final rule amending 40 CFR parts 141 and 142, 
published on April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20304), is withdrawn as of June 13, 
2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Melch, Implementation and 
Assistance Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-
4606), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-7035. Information may also be obtained 
from the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline. Callers within the United 
States may reach the Hotline at (800) 426-4791. The Hotline is open 
Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 
p.m. EST.

    Dated: June 8, 2000.
J. Charles Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 00-14886 Filed 6-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 2 NASS, USDA

This report was approved on January 11, 1999.

Acting Secretary of

Agriculture

Michael V. Dunn

 Agricultural Statistics Board

 Chairperson

 Rich Allen 
Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 3 NASS, USDA

Contents

Page

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Cottonseed ........................................................................... 6

Crop Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Fruit, Citrus .......................................................................... 8

Hay Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Information ntsi( . . 3 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ) 2 5 0 ( 0 ) ] 


Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board





Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 12 NASS, USDA

rainfall and also moved into southern Arkansas. Tropical storm Hermine made landfall in Louisiana, but had
Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 13 NASS, USDA

Jn egricultu The J-6(tA)]TJı ̋ ̋1 i8ıc4J1r (taecast r (tfprJıthe p4ı.-)USD(f U.S. gı ̋( u4(apefrui-7crod5ddii( 5t 32.62 ıbv0oc 4 .16Jıs1ta6Jıs rm)(tati43( a6(rolig(tahtly(firo)75..72tiod5 547th(h ı ̋4icHaw)8(a7i)83,73wıcmaıh,4r)8e D.001 rob 5e))8e)nirJ1raecast 3tfır)8dfır)8 sligh,4r)8tlTDı3( 5e))8eticr 1fırr8uicr4 .58r5e2ıa6qicrrufıasıash ı ̋8aseedlessoJıs1c5( 6lrober*d seedlesso, ,4t.fır)8s1c5( 6ntinuoc 4 .18.0ulS,8,a)Jıs1r Dbıs1rxJs (765,0 4i25( 6ns)oJıs1r1.5ulS,8,a)Jıs1r  ̋4icHawa7ilast sJs sx8r5e1ıa6qicr 5eticrseas(ti. rob8rT4ilow o,)8eir85eti. rob8rT4ilo3( 5e)tiar5eiaseedlessoJıs1c5( 6ntinuc(rm)fs1()no,)s1tali( ( 6s1(62 ıbv0ocr)8uncvı ̋( ( S,8,a)500)oJı65,0 4i25( 21)oJıs1r1.5ulS, u4(as1wı ̋ulveltlT)7-6(Areunuc(rm)fs1()thr)8Dıpuedn5rietyi)83,73ra Tfır)8TDı3(last sJs sx8erT4n5ecor,4r)8twda)h,4ıa)83,74rtA

Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 15 NASS, USDA

California Fruits and Nuts: Growers were busy with normal winter activities during December such as

weed control, fertilizing, pruning, and replanting trees. Pecan, kiwifruit, and persimmon harvests continued. 

Picking of fresh grapes and apples was completed.

Hay Stocks on Farm: Stocks of all hay on farms December 1, 1998 totaled 112 million tons, 9 percent

above the stocks on farms December 1, 1997. Stock increases occurred in 33 of the 48 contiguous States. 
Crop Production Agricultural Statistics Board

January 1999 16 NASS, USDA