alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under

the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may

be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P.

32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 2, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EARNEST WILSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

DUKE TERRELL, Warden

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-3136

 (D.C. No. 5:07-CV-03197-RDR)

(D. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, McCONNELL, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

The petitioner appeals the dismissal by the United States District
2

Court for the District of Kansas of his petition for writ of habeas corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm.

The petitioner challenged a criminal judgment entered by the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He alleged that he

is being illegally held because the sentencing court had no right to

resentence him without another plea or a trial, that the trial court lacked

subject matter jurisdiction, and that he was denied effective assistance of

counsel. He also challenged the dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion he

filed on the ground that it was a second/successive motion.

Normally, “‘[a] petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution

of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where

the prisoner is confined. A [section 2255 motion] attacks the legality of

detention, and must be filed in the district that imposed the sentence.’” 

Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir.2000) (quoting Bradshaw

v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir.1996)). See also United States v.

Eccleston, 521 F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir. 2008) (“A challenge to the

propriety of the federal conviction itself ... must proceed under § 2255, not

§ 2241.”) (citation omitted). Section 2241 “is not an additional, alternative,

or supplemental remedy to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” Bradshaw, 86 F.3d at 166. 

Only if the petitioner shows that § 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective” to

challenge the validity of a judgment or sentence may a prisoner petition for
3

such a remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id. 

The petitioner has not established the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The mere fact that he was denied relief under § 2255 does

not render it inadequate or ineffective. Id. “Failure to obtain relief under §

2255 does not establish that the remedy so provided is either inadequate or

ineffective.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

Accordingly, the district court judgment is AFFIRMED. The mandate

shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
Gambit Resources, et



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

January 23, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00016

- CV

Robert W. EARDLEY , et al, Appellants

v.

GAMBIT RESOURCES, ET AL.

, Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas Trial Court No. 13

- 09

- 12098

- DCV Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellants have filed a notice stating that Appellee Gambit Resources , Inc. is in bankruptcy. The notice complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.1. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.1. Accordingly, the appeal and all time periods are stayed from the date the bankruptcy petition was filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2.

We, ther efore, ABATE this appeal. For administrative purposes, the appeal will be treated as a closed case unless and until it is reinstated or severed in accordance with Rule 8.3. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.3.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

 

November 28, 2022 

 

VIA E-MAIL

cjmeltz@triallawfla.com

lmkelly@triallawfla.com

Charles J. Meltz

Laura M. Kelly

Telan, Meltz, Wallace & Eide, PA

901 N. Lake Destiny Road, Suite 450 

Maitland, FL 32751 

 RE: MUR 8082 

 Abby Dupree 

` 

Dear Mr. Meltz and Ms. Kelly: 

This is in response to a request for an extension to respond to the complaint filed in the above 

mentioned matter we received on November 28, 2022. After considering the circumstances in this 

matter, the Office of General Counsel has granted the requested extension. Accordingly, the response 

is due on or before the close of business December 30, 2022. You may contact me if you have any 

questions at cela@fec.gov.

 Sincerely, 

 

 Kathryn Ross, Paralegal

 Complaints Examination and 

 Legal Administration 

MUR808200096
#### § 90.221 Adjacent channel power limits.

(a) For the frequency bands indicated below, operations using equipment designed to operate with a 25 kHz channel bandwidth may be authorized up to a 22 kHz bandwidth if the equipment meets the adjacent channel power (ACP) limits below. The table specifies a value for the ACP as a function of the displacement from the channel center frequency and a measurement bandwidth of 18 kHz.

(b)

(1) Maximum adjacent power levels for frequencies in the 450-470 MHz band:

| Frequency offset | Maximum ACP (dBc) for devices 1 watt and less | Maximum ACP (dBc) for devices above 1 watt |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 25 kHz | −55 dBc | −60 dBc |
| 50 kHz | −70 dBc | −70 dBc |
| 75 kHz | −70 dBc | −70 dBc |

(2) In any case, no requirement in excess of −36 dBm shall apply.

(c)

(1) Maximum adjacent power levels for frequencies in the 809-824/854-869 MHz band:

| Frequency offset | Maximum ACP (dBc) for devices less than 15 watts | Maximum ACP (dBc) for devices 15 watts and above |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 25 kHz | −55 dBc | −55 dBc |
| 50 kHz | −65 dBc | −65 dBc |
| 75 kHz | −65 dBc | −70 dBc |

(2) In any case, no requirement in excess of −36 dBm shall apply.

(d) On any frequency removed from the assigned frequency by more than 75 kHz, the attenuation of any emission must be at least 43 + 10 log (Pwatts) dB.

[77 FR 61538, Oct. 10, 2012]
§ 1226.14 What are the limitations in applying approved records schedules? Agencies must apply the approved records disposition schedules to their agency's records as follows ( a ) Records described by items marked “disposition not approved” or “withdrawn” may not be destroyed until a specific disposition has been approved by NARA.
( b ) Disposition authorities for items on approved SF 115s that specify an organizational component of the department or independent agency as the creator or custodian of the records may be applied to the same records after internal reorganization, but only if the nature, content, and functional importance of the records remain the same. Authority approved for items described in a functional format may be applied to any organizational component within the department or independent agency that is responsible for the relevant function.
( c ) Disposition authorities approved for one department or independent agency may not be applied to records of another department or agency. Departments or agencies that acquire records from another department or agency, and/or continue creating the same series of records previously created by another department or agency through interagency reorganization must promptly submit an SF 115 to NARA for disposition authorization. Until the new records schedule is approved, the records are unscheduled. See § 1225.22 of this subchapter.
( d ) Unless otherwise specified, newly approved disposition authorities apply retroactively to all existing records as described in the schedule.
( e ) When required by court order (*i.e.*, order for expungement or destruction), an agency may destroy temporary records before their NARA-authorized disposition date. In accordance with § 1230.14 of this subchapter, an agency must notify NARA, by mail at National Archives and Records Administration; Office of the Chief Records Officer (AC); 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, or by email at *RM.Communications@nara.gov ,* when permanent or unscheduled records are to be destroyed in response to a court order. If the records have significant historical value, NARA will promptly advise the agency of any concerns over their destruction.
[74 FR 51014, Oct. 2, 2009, as amended at 83 FR 13653, Mar. 30, 2018]
12/04/2015 15:15 8472947498 FAA GLRC 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: ) 

) 

MN AIRLINES, LLC ) 

d/b/a SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-2444 

CASE NO. 2014-GL-15-0030 

APPEARANCE OF CO-COUNSEL FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Now comes Lauren Hoyson, and appears as co-counsel with Kate Barber for the 

Administrator. 

Submitted this 4th day of December, 2015. 

fi~jp~ Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Midwest Team 

2300 East Devon Ave., Room 479 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Email: Lauren.Hoyson@faa.gov 

Telephone: (847) 294-7313 (main) 

(84 7) 294-7\65 (direct) 

(847)294-7498 (fax) 

PAGE 02/03 
12/04/2015 15:15 FAA GLRC 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby ce.rtify that I have this day served the foregoing APPEARANCE OF CO-COUNSEL 

FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR on the following, at the address indicated, by U.S. Mail and 

facsimile. 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Heari.ng Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Fax: 202-267-1293 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

J 200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Mr. Donald Chance Mark, Jr. 

Respondent's Counsel 

Fafinski Mark & Johnson, P.A. 

Flagship Corporate Center 

775 Prairie Center Drive, Suite 400 

Eden Prairie, MN 55344 

FAX: 952-995-9577 

Dated at Des Plaines, Illinois this 4th day of December, 2015 

Yolanda 

Legal T mctan 

On behalf of the Administrator, 

of the Federal Aviation Admini.stration 

PAGE 03/03 
12/04/2015 15:15 8472947498 FAA GLRC 

To~d&dCompany:------

Phone: -------,---

Fax: do /1- Jla7- I !J t}?] · 

From: 

G/4JM£M.d/IJ~ 

:: L~vr . 

Pages w/cover: · ?J# . RE: 

PAGE 01/03 

· Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Regional Counsel's Offioe,AGL-7 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 

T847-294- J?J/?J 

F' 847-294-7488 

Facsimile
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 17, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00706-CV 

SAMUEL T. RUSSELL, Appellant 

V. 

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02493 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Nowell 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

 

 Before the Court is appellant’s November 13, 2019 motion to withdraw his appeal. We 

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

190706F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

SAMUEL T. RUSSELL, Appellant 

No. 05-19-00706-CV V. 

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02493. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. 

Justices Whitehill and Nowell participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

It is ORDERED that appellee DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT recover 

its costs of this appeal from appellant SAMUEL T. RUSSELL. 

Judgment entered December 17, 2019
#### Henry R. Kent, as Executor and Trustee under the Will of John Dickinson, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*A. Warner Shepard, Respondent.

(Argued March 6, 1907;

decided April 2, 1907.)

*Kent*v. *Shepard,*110 App. Div. 64, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 18, 1906, in favor of defendant upon the submission of a controversy under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to the power and authority of the plaintiff, as execu- * tor and trustee under the will of John Dickinson, deceased, to convey certain premises.

*Rastus 8. Ransom*and *Charles A. Clark*for appellant.

■ *Frank B. Fork*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V218 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V218

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 2 — Social policy - Article III-218 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0097 - 0097 *

Article III-218

The Commission shall include a separate chapter on social developments within the Union in its annual report to the European Parliament.

The European Parliament may invite the Commission to draw up reports on any particular problems concerning social conditions.

--------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

 

December 21, 2022 

 

VIA E-MAIL

chris@ashby.law

Chris Ashby 

Ashby Law 

625 North Washington Street, Suite 325 

Alexandria, VA 223146 

RE: MUR 8082 

 Richard Alexander Sean Anderson 

 Grow United, Inc. Broken Promises 

 Florida Promise Stand Up for Justice

 The Center for Advancement 

 of Integrity and Justice, Inc. 

Dear Mr. Ashby: 

This is in response to a request for an extension to respond to the complaint filed in the above 

mentioned matter we received on December 19, 2022. After considering the circumstances in this 

matter, the Office of General Counsel has granted the requested extension. Accordingly, the response 

is due on or before the close of business January 17, 2023. You may contact me if you have any 

questions at cela@fec.gov.

 Sincerely, 

 

 Kathryn Ross, Paralegal

 Complaints Examination and 

 Legal Administration 

MUR808200107
July 2, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ZACHARY COLEMAN, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00794-CV V.

CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE REICH, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Christopher 

Dewayne Reich, signed June 5, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the 

judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee, Christopher Dewayne Reich.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from internet.com
Corporation's unaudited consolidated financial statements as of and for the
period ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          42,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                       207
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,103
<PP&E>                                           2,231
<DEPRECIATION>                                     204
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,375
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              233
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,071
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,484
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,903
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,856)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,856)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,856)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.86)


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 12006E/PRO/08 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E/PRO/08

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - C. Protocols annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty establishing the European Community and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community - Protocol (No 8) on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities and of Europol (1997) **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0226 - 0226 *

Protocol (No 8)

on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities and of Europol (1997)

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES,

HAVING REGARD to Article 289 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 77 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and Article 189 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,

HAVING REGARD to the Treaty on European Union,

RECALLING AND CONFIRMING the Decision of 8 April 1965, and without prejudice to the decisions concerning the seat of future institutions, bodies and departments,

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaties establishing the European Communities,

Sole Article

(a) The European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held. The periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels. The committees of the European Parliament shall meet in Brussels. The General Secretariat of the European Parliament and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg.

(b) The Council shall have its seat in Brussels. During the months of April, June and October, the Council shall hold its meetings in Luxembourg.

(c) The Commission shall have its seat in Brussels. The departments listed in Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Decision of 8 April 1965 shall be established in Luxembourg.

(d) The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance shall have their seats in Luxembourg.

(e) The Court of Auditors shall have its seat in Luxembourg.

(f) The Economic and Social Committee shall have its seat in Brussels.

(g) The Committee of the Regions shall have its seat in Brussels.

(h) The European Investment Bank shall have its seat in Luxembourg.

(i) The European Monetary Institute and the European Central Bank shall have their seat in Frankfurt.

(j) The European Police Office (Europol) shall have its seat in The Hague.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 80.377 Frequencies for ship earth stations.

The frequency band 1626.5-1645.5 MHz is assignable for communication operations and radiodetermination and telecommand messages that are associated with the position, orientation and operational functions of maritime satellite equipment. The frequency band 1645.5-1646.5 MHz is reserved for use in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).

[78 FR 25175, Apr. 29, 2013]
#### JOHN C. TALTY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF HOBOKEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued November 19, 1951

Decided November 30, 1951.

Before Judges Jacobs, Bigelow and Colie.

*Mr. Thomas J. Brogan*argued the cause for appellant.

*Mr. Maurice G. Brigadier*argued the cause for respondent *(Mr. Joseph P.*Manrahan, attorney).

Per, Curiam.

The judgment under appeal is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court below which is reported in 11 *N. J. Super.*123*(Law Div.*1950).
§ 1120.22 Requests to which this subpart applies. ( a ) This subpart applies to any written request (other than a request made by another Federal agency) received by the A&TBCB, whether or not the request cites the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, except with respect to records for which a less formal disclosure procedure is provided specifically in this part.
( b ) Any written request to the A&TBCB for existing records prepared by the A&TBCB for routine public distribution, e.g., pamphlets, copies of speeches, press releases, and educational materials, shall be honored. No individual determination under § 1120.32 is necessary in these cases, since preparation of the materials for routine public distribution itself constitutes that a determination that the records are available to the public.
( c ) This subpart applies only to records that exist at the time the request for information is made. (See § 1120.3, *Existing records.)*