alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 4810

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. MARVIN ALEXANDER WRIGHT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 9:11

- cr - 00350

- RMG

- 1 )

Submitted : November 24, 2020 Decided: December 22, 2020

Before MOTZ and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Peter M. McCoy, Jr., Un ited States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Nick Bianchi, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marvin Wright appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised release and imposition of 60 months’ imprisonment. Wright raises two arguments on appeal: T he
g overnment erroneously withheld certain evidence in violation of Wright’s due process rig hts , and insufficient evidence supported the district court’s conclusion that Wright possessed drugs . For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Supervised release revocation hearings are not “criminal prosecutions” under the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Ward , 770 F.3d 1090, 1097 (4th Cir. 2014). “[T]hus, the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to [supervised release] revocations.” Morrisey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972). Here, Wright was only entitled to the “minimum requirements of due process” and the requirements of
Fed eral R ule of Crim inal P rocedure 32.1(b)(2). See id

. at 488

– 89 ; Ward , 770 F.3d at 1098. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court’s discovery orde rs provided for sufficient due process and , to the extent Wright identified evidence that the district court declined to provide, the court did not err in denying Wright’s request s . Turning to Wright’s sufficiency argument, we review the district court’s r evocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion and its factual determinations underlying the conclusion that a violation occurred for clear error. United States v. Dennison , 925 F.3d 185, 190 (4th Cir. 2019). A district court need only find a su pervised release violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that there was ample evidence adduced at the revocation hearing from which the district court could conclud e that Wright possessed the drugs at issue.3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral arguments because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-41048, 333-45002, 333-85304, and 333-108246) of
Connetics Corporation and in Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-46562,
333-61558, 333-82468, 333-58146, 333-85302, 333-102619, and 333-112614)
pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Stock Plan (2000), 2000
Non-Officer Employee Stock Plan, International Stock Incentive Plan, 1995
Directors' Stock Option Plan and 2002 Employee Stock Plan of Connetics
Corporation, of our report dated January 23, 2004, except for Note 18, as to
which the date is March 4, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Connetics Corporation included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 9, 2004
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.103 Effective dates of Commission actions; finality of Commission actions. ( a ) Unless otherwise specified by law or Commission rule (e.g. §§ 1.102 and 1.427), the effective date of any Commission action shall be the date of public notice of such action as that latter date is defined in § 1.4(b) of these rules: *Provided,* That the Commission may, on its own motion or on motion by any party, designate an effective date that is either earlier or later in time than the date of public notice of such action. The designation of an earlier or later effective date shall have no effect on any pleading periods.
( b ) Notwithstanding any determinations made under paragraph (a) of this section, Commission action shall be deemed final, for purposes of seeking reconsideration at the Commission or judicial review, on the date of public notice as defined in § 1.4(b) of these rules.
(Secs. 4, 303, 307, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1082, 1083; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307)
[46 FR 18556, Mar. 25, 1981]
#### § 54.608 Eligible service providers.

For purposes of the Healthcare Connect Fund Program, eligible service providers shall include any provider of equipment, facilities, or services that is eligible for support under the Healthcare Connect Fund Program.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          SCB COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY, INC.

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-1590) pertaining to the SCB Computer Technology, Inc. 1995 Stock
Incentive Plan, and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-36971 and
Form S-8 No. 333-68343) pertaining to the SCB Computer Technology, Inc. 1997
Stock Incentive Plan, of our report dated June 30, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows and
schedule for the year ended April 30, 1999 of SCB Computer Technology, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2001.



                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
July 27, 2001
§ 24.717 Bidding credits for licenses for frequency Block F. ( a ) Except with respect to licenses won in closed bidding in auctions that begin after March 23, 1999, a winning bidder that qualifies as a small business, as defined in § 24.720(b)(1), or a consortium of small businesses may use a bidding credit of fifteen percent, as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this chapter, to lower the cost of its winning bid.
( b ) Except with respect to licenses won in closed bidding in auctions that begin after March 23, 1999, a winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business, as defined in § 24.720(b)(2), or a consortium of very small businesses may use a bidding credit of twenty-five percent as specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter, to lower the cost of its winning bid.
[68 FR 42999, July 21, 2003]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1083: STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"x66PvKfoGG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-16-2023-20-1083-steuben-foods-inc-v-vidal-opinion-20-1083-opinion-8-16-2023_2174999\/\">20-1083: STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-16-2023-20-1083-steuben-foods-inc-v-vidal-opinion-20-1083-opinion-8-16-2023_2174999\/embed\/#?secret=x66PvKfoGG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1083: STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"x66PvKfoGG\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: STEUBEN FOODS, INC. v. VIDAL [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1083 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1407 Remedies. ( a ) If the Commission determines that the rate, term, or condition complained of is not just and reasonable, it may prescribe a just and reasonable rate, term, or condition and may: ( 1 ) Terminate the unjust and/or unreasonable rate, term, or condition;
( 2 ) Substitute in the pole attachment agreement the just and reasonable rate, term, or condition established by the Commission; and/or
( 3 ) Order a refund, or payment, if appropriate. The refund or payment will normally be the difference between the amount paid under the unjust and/or unreasonable rate, term, or condition and the amount that would have been paid under the rate, term, or condition established by the Commission, plus interest, consistent with the applicable statute of limitations.
( b ) If the Commission determines that access to a pole, duct, conduit, or right-of-way has been unlawfully denied or delayed, it may order that access be permitted within a specified time frame and in accordance with specified rates, terms, and conditions.
[83 FR 44841, Sept. 4, 2018]
395P15

#### State v. Timothy Jerome Lawing

1. Def’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA14-1288)

1.—

2. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied

3. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Allowed
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 2.903 Prohibition on authorization of equipment on the Covered List. ( a ) All equipment on the Covered List, as established pursuant to § 1.50002 of this chapter, is prohibited from obtaining an equipment authorization under this subpart. This includes: ( 1 ) Equipment that would otherwise be subject to certification procedures;
( 2 ) Equipment that would otherwise be subject to Supplier's Declaration of Conformity procedures; and
( 3 ) Equipment that would otherwise be exempt from equipment authorization.
( b ) Each entity named on the Covered List as producing covered communications equipment, as established pursuant to § 1.50002 of this chapter, must provide to the Commission the following information: the full name, mailing address or physical address (if different from mailing address), email address, and telephone number of each of that named entity's associated entities (*e.g.,* subsidiaries or affiliates) identified on the Covered List as producing covered communications equipment. ( 1 ) Each entity named on the Covered List as producing covered communications equipment must provide the information described in paragraph (b) of this section no later than March 8, 2023;
( 2 ) Each entity named on the Covered List as producing covered communications equipment must provide the information described in paragraph (b) of this section no later than 30 days after the effective date of each updated Covered List; and
( 3 ) Each entity named on the Covered List as producing covered communications equipment must notify the Commission of any changes to the information described in paragraph (b) of this section no later than 30 days after such change occurs.
( c ) For purposes of implementing this subpart with regard to the prohibition on authorization of communications equipment on the Covered List, the following definitions apply: *Affiliate.* The term “affiliate” means an entity that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another entity; for purposes of this paragraph, the term `own' means to have, possess, or otherwise control an equity interest (or the equivalent thereof) of more than 10 percent.
*Subsidiary.* The term “subsidiary” means any entity in which another entity directly or indirectly: ( i ) Holds de facto control; or
( ii ) Owns or controls more than 50 percent of the outstanding voting stock.
( d ) The Commission delegates authority to the Office of Engineering and Technology and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to develop and provide additional clarifications as appropriate regarding implementation of the prohibition on authorization of covered communications equipment. The Office of Engineering and Technology and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau will issue through Public Notice, and publish on the Commission's website, the Commission's relevant guidance on covered communications equipment, as well as further clarifications, and will update and maintain this information as appropriate.
[88 FR 7623, Feb. 6, 2023]
#### § 32.6530 Network operations expense.

Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6531 through 6535.

[82 FR 20843, May 4, 2017]
# iCollege Will Not Accept New GS12 Students After July 1, 2015

/ Published June 1, 2015

**** POLICY CHANGE ANNOUNCEMENT !!!!!   *****  Please be advised that as of July 1, 2015, we will no longer be accepting new GS12 students into our programs. We will only accept GS13s and above, and military officer O4 levels and above. If you are a GS12 applicant, please make sure your application is on file with the iCollege Office of Student Services by the end of this month, June 30, 2015.  GS12 students already in our programs may continue through their certificate/degree completion. We are sorry for any inconvenience.Please direct any questions to the iCollege Office of Student Services at 202-685-6300 or iCollegeOSS@ndu.edu.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information derived from Greater
     Atlantic Financial Corp.'s unaudited financial statements for the six
     months ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
     to such financial statements and the note thereto.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           766
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  103,111
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        30,361
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          29,280
<LOANS>                                      118,269
<ALLOWANCE>                                      570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               263,046
<DEPOSITS>                                   138,453
<SHORT-TERM>                                  66,395
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,273
<LONG-TERM>                                   33,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             30
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                    23,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               263,046
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                3,698
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              4,084
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               7,782
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3,497
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,945
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2,340
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      7
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (68)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (987)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      (987)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (601)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.09)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                  7.07
<LOANS-NON>                                       70
<LOANS-PAST>                                       0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 570
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     27
<RECOVERIES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                570
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             529
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           41



</TABLE>
#### § 213.8 Implementation.

Federal departments and agencies are authorized to issue such additional orders as are necessary to effect implementation of this circular.
steam_record - Re: Gulf Power Company Steam Effluent Guideline ICR 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, 

-----"Kennedy, Susan Butler" <SKENNEDY@southernco.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Kennedy, Susan Butler" <SKENNEDY@southernco.com> 

Date: 06/25/2010 03:22PM 

Subject: Gulf Power Company Steam Effluent Guideline ICR 

Sent on behalf of Mr. Jim Vick. 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Kennedy, Susan Butler" <SKENNEDY@southernco.com>

Date: 6/28/2010 3:53 PM

Subject: Re: Gulf Power Company Steam Effluent Guideline ICR

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C28C589DO... 3/17/2011
Susan B. Kennedy, Q.E.P. 

Environmental Affairs 

Gulf Power Company 

One Energy Place 

Pensacola, FL 32520-0328 

850-444-6153/cell 850-336-6153 

[attachment "Gulf Steam ICR extension request.pdf" removed by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US] 

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C28C589DO... 3/17/2011
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-1229 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-132-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

10 50.0 $4,250.0

0

$35,000 $39,250.00 600 $23,550,000.

00

10 35.0 $2,975.0

0

$17,000 $19,975.00 688 $13,742,800.

00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $37,292,800

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs: 

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carroll E. Amos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

A.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

B.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.





                                         By: /s/ Carroll E. Amos
                                         -----------------------
                                         Carroll E. Amos
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer


                                         Date: August 13, 2009