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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6066

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

LEWIS CARNELL JACKSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00110-FL-1; 5:12-cv-00205-FL) 

Submitted: July 20, 2015 Decided: July 22, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Lewis Carnell Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

December 2014 order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not communicating 

a plea agreement to him prior to trial. 

This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 motion 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 

Jackson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

his motion for 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 this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### ROBERT H. DRAKE *v.*JANE BARKER and Another.

*Ejectment. Purchaser with Notice. Agent.*

1. The question being whether theplaintiff was a *bona fide*purchaser, without notice of an unrecorded deed, and the transaction having been conducted by his agent, notice to the agent was notice to the principal; and any evidence tending to prove notice to the agent was admissible.

2. But the juryfoundspecially, in effect, that theplaintiff himself had actual notice, which is fatal to his right of recovery.

Ejectment. Trial by jury, September Term, 1881, Veazey, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the defendants.

The exceptions showed that both parties claimed title from Robert R. Drake, father of the plaintiff; that the defendants’ deed was first executed, and the plaintiff’s first recorded ; and that the plaintiff testified that his father was his agent to do the business of making the deed and getting it recorded. The other facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Several questions were raised in the court below ; but these are no longer material after the verdict, and the construction given it by the court.

*Bedington $*Butler, for the plaintiff.

In the action of ejectment the legal title only is involved. 29 Vt. 405 ; 23 Miss. 84; 5 U. S. Dig. 183, s. 162.

*P. B. Kendall*and *Beaman £*Platt, for the defendants.

R. R. Drake was both the plaintiff’s agent and the grantor. The plaintiff is affected with his agent’s knowledge. *Hart*v. Bank, 33 Vt. 252; 1 Keen, 154.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Rowell, J.

Plaintiff claimed, and gave evidence tending to show, that he was a *bona jide*purchaser of the demanded premises, without notice of the unrecorded deed thereof from Robert R. Drake, his father, to Henry Langdon, dated January 18,1869. Defendants claimed, and gave evidence tending to show, that *373plaintiff was not such purchaser, but had actual notice of said deed. Plaintiff also claimed, and gave evidence tending to show, that during the summer before his deed was executed, he had some talk with his father about purchasing the demanded premises; that he was constantly employed in a hotel in New York during the season, and was so employed at the time his deed was executed ; and that, in consequence thereof,.he was obliged to do the business of taking his deed in the way it was done.

The effect of this claim was, to make plaintiff’s father his agent in this behalf; and if his agent, then notice to his father would be notice to him, and any evidence tending to show notice to his father was admissible.

But the court submitted to the jury to find specially whether plaintiff was an innocent purchaser independently of the knowledge his father had in the exercise of his agency, and the jury found he was not; thus, in effect, finding that plaintiff had actual notice of said unrecorded deed. This finding is fatal to plaintiff’s right of recovery, and renders it unnecessary to consider the other questions raised in the case.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

North American Wetlands Conservation Council (Council); Meeting 
Announcement

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Council will meet at 1 p.m., July 14, 2000, to select 
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) proposals for 
recommendations to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The 
meeting is open to the public.

DATES: July 14, 2000, 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Bessborough Hotel, 601 
Spadina Crescent East, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. The Council 
Coordinator is located at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Suite 110, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Smith, Council Coordinator, 
(703) 358-1784.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 
103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-
Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, 
enhancement and management projects for recommendation to, and final 
funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 
Proposals require a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds.

    Dated: June 8, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Srvice.
[FR Doc. 00-15764 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 774 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 774

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To amend the Small Business Act to change the conditions of 
 participation and provide an authorization of appropriations for the 
                    women's business center program.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 774

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To amend the Small Business Act to change the conditions of 
 participation and provide an authorization of appropriations for the 
                    women's business center program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Women's Business Center Amendments 
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 29(c)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 656(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``and'' after the 
        semicolon at the end; and
            (2) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(B) in the third, fourth, and fifth years, 1 non-
                Federal dollar for each Federal dollar.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
beginning October 1, 1998.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 29(k)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(k)(1)) is 
amended by striking ``8,000,000'' and inserting ``11,000,000''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 302-3.3 As a new appointee, are there any expenses that my agency will not pay?

Yes, as a new employee, your agency will not pay for expenses that are not listed in § 302-3.2 (e.g., per diem for family, cost of househunting trip, miscellaneous expense allowance, etc.).
No. 11-9490.

#### Vargas *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-10918.

#### Butler *v.*Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16013]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-264-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Technical Conference

June 20, 2000.
    In the Commission's order issued on May 31, 2000,\1\ the Commission 
directed that a technical conference be held to address issues raised 
by the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 91 FERC para. 61,216 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on 
Wednesday, July 19, 2000, at 10 a.m. in a room to be designated at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16013 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification

I, Denise D. Roberts,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the American Express Credit Account Master Trust (the Exchange Act periodic
reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing or other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
agreements in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I
have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon and TransCentra, Inc. (formerly known as Regulus Group LLC).



|                     |  |                                                           
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 26, 2018
|                     | 
|By:                  |  | /s/ Denise D. Roberts                                     
|Name:                |  | Denise D. Roberts                                         
|Title:               |  | President,                                                
|                     |  | American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III LLC
|                     |  | (Senior officer in charge of securitization)
No. 11-9194.

#### Ayala-Nicanor *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39923-39924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-680-00-1220-HQ]


Supplemental Rule Restricting Recreational Shooting to Protect 
Human Health and Safety in a Portion of Wonder Valley, California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Barstow 
Field Office, Desert District, California.

ACTION: On those public lands administered by the BLM and located 
within T.1 N., R.10 E., Sec 5 S\1/2\ and Sec 8 N\1/2\, San Bernardino 
Meridian, it is prohibited to fire any firearm. This supplemental rule 
does not affect the legitimate and legal pursuit of game or the 
discharge of a firearm for purposes of personal protection.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations 
Section 8365.1-6 the State Director may establish supplementary rules 
in order to provide for the protection of persons, property and public 
lands and resources. This authority was delegated to the District 
Managers and Field Managers pursuant to BLM Manual 1203, California 
Supplement.
    Penalties: Failure to comply with this supplementary rule is 
punishable by a

[[Page 39924]]

fine not to exceed $100,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed twelve 
months.

DATES: The supplemental rule will take effect at midnight, August 1, 
2000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental rule was proposed to 
create a safer environment for residents living in northwestern Wonder 
Valley. Residents have complained that rounds from gunfire originating 
on public land has either caused property damage or nearly caused human 
injury. During a sixty-day comment period and an open house, many 
legitimate concerns regarding shooting in Wonder Valley surfaced. 
Comments received spanned the gamut between closing all of Wonder 
Valley to all shooting and taking no action. Consensus was, that by 
closing the 640-acres surrounding the Valle Vista uncontrolled shooting 
area in northwest Wonder Valley to shooting, the safety concerns of 
nearby citizens could be met while allowing recreational shooting to 
continue in other portions of Wonder Valley. The user group for the 
Valle Vista site will be redirected to controlled ranges or dispersed 
to contiguous blocks of public land on the fringes of Wonder Valley. 
This supplemental rule will not infringe upon Constitutional rights of 
an individual to own or possess a lawful firearm. The environmental 
effects of the suppelemntal rule have been analyzed separately by 
Environmental Assessment CA-680-00-29.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT: BLM Barstow Field Office, 2601 
Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92231, telephone (760) 252-6000

Tim Read,
Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-16145 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
501 P.2d 20

#### MERCANTILE NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Frank B. VILLALBA, Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1220.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 26, 1972.

*180William W. Anderson, Scottsdale, for appellant.

Richardson, Mortensen & Greenhalgh, by Irval L. Mortensen, Safford, for appellee.

HOWARD, Judge.

The record indicates that the trial court struck appellant’s answer and entered a default judgment. The facts of the case are not important at this date since the record clearly demonstrates two cogent reasons why this case should be affirmed.

We first note that appellant filed no motion in the trial court under Rule 55(c), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., to set aside the default judgment. There is no doubt that this requirement must be met prior to an appeal from a default judgment. Byrer v. A. B. Robbs Trust Co., 105 Ariz. 457, 466 P.2d 751 (1970); Horne v. Superior Court, 89 Ariz. 289, 361 P.2d 547 (1961).

If this were not enough, we also note that appellant’s brief does not comply with the requirements of Rule 5(b) 9, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S. This rule requires that the briefs contain: “An argument exhibiting clearly the points of fact and of law to be presented and *citing the authorities relied upon in support thereof.”*(Emphasis added.) That part of appellant’s brief entitled “Argument” contains less than three hundered words. It contains two citations of so-called “authority.” One of its authorities is a recitation of the rule of civil procedure relied on by the appellee to strike appellant’s answer in the trial court. The other authority is the reference to 71 C.J.S. Pleadings, § 559 (1951). Appellant does not suggest in a satisfactory manner how this authority is applicable to the case at hand.

We are not given the benefit of any decision from this jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction on the points raised in appellant’s brief. In State v Turovh, 3 Ariz. App. 252, 413 P.2d 583 (1966) this court stated that the adversary system of dispensing justice is effective only in the event that there is substantial advocacy and effort on both sides of the question to be judicially determined. We would further note that if counsel can find no authority with which to support an appeal he ought save the appellate courts of this state a great deal of time and effort by not filing an appeal.

Although the requirements of an appellant’s brief have been relaxed as to formalities by recent amendments to the rules of the Supreme Court, eliminating the necessity for assignments of error and propositions of law, there has been no relaxation of the requirements contained in Rule 5(b) 9, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Turovh, supra.

Affirmed.

KRUCKER, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.
§ 109-1.5302 Policies. ( a ) It is the responsibility of DOE organizations and designated contractors to manage and control Government-owned high risk personal property in an efficient manner. High-risk personal property will be managed throughout its life cycle so as to protect public and DOE personnel safety and to advance the national security and the nuclear nonproliferation objectives of the U.S. Government.
( b ) The disposition of high risk property is subject to special considerations. Items of high risk property may present significant risks to the national security and nuclear nonproliferation objectives of the Government which must be evaluated. Organizations will identify high risk property and control its disposition to eliminate or mitigate such risks. In no case shall property be transferred or disposed unless it receives a high risk assessment and is handled accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
historical financial statements of American Pad & Paper Company's September 30,
1999, 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000005588
<NAME>                                         AMERICAN PAD & PAPER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                                 1,000

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 0
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             488,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            0
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                       279
<OTHER-SE>                                                 (14,397)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               488,891
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           416,398
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (35,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                     (726)
<NET-INCOME>                                               (36,150)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (1.30)



</TABLE>