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

**No. 10**  **- 7215** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
BILLY RAY FELDER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Di strict of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00295

- BO

- 2; 5:09

- cv - 00385

- BO; 5:10

- cv 00095

- BO )

Submitted : November 30, 2010 Decided: December 7, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismis sed by un published per curiam opinion
. Billy Ray Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circui t.2 PER CURIAM: Billy Ray Felder seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stan dard 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 th e 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 Felder has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Felder’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and l egal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr., Respondent, *v.*Nora B. Norworth et al., Appellants.

*Ziegfeld*v. *Norworth,*143 App. Div. 937, appeal dismissed.

(Argued May 29, 1911;

decided June 6, 1911.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 27, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action for an injunction to restrain defendants from violating an alleged contract.

The motion was made upon the grounds:

*First.*That the injunction granted by the final decree having expired, the appeal presented nothing but an academic question.

*581
      *Second.*That no appeal lay to the Court of Appeals to review an allowance of costs in an equity action.

*Third.*That said court might not review the question as to the propriety of the award of costs, having no jurisdiction to review the subject-matter of the final judgment, namely, the granting of an injunction the duration of which had expired, and that the appeal presented only questions of fact not reviewable by the Court of Appeals.

*David Gerber*for motion.

*Benjamin N. Cardozo*and *William Klein*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Special Emphasis Panel Review PAR-06-211 Data Analysis & Statistical Methodology R03s & R21s.                              ( print page 52896)    

*Date:*                         October 19, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 AM to 12:30 PM.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rebecca Wagenaar Miller, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Dr. Rm 4AN 32G, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-0652,                         *rwagenaa@nidcr.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 6, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4564  Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Avatar Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the year ended March 31, 3006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert C. Shreve, Jr., President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

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

          (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                    | AVATAR SYSTEMS, INC. |
|-------------------------|----------------------|
|                    |                 |   |
| **Dated: May 12, 2006** | By:                  | /s/ROBERT C. SHREVE, JR. |
|                    |                 |  |
|                    |                 | Robert C. Shreve, Jr. |
|                    |                 | Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |                 | Chief Financial Officer |

          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

----
1210-AB32-2-1507.html[7/26/2015 6:22:19 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwl-g2qg

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2003

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: kelly long

Address:

2320 tally green ct

nashville, TN, 37214

Email: kelly.long@tn.gov

General Comment

Stay away from my 401 K
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. George BECKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95, Docket 25180.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 7, 1958.

Decided Oct. 22, 1958.

*870Eugene O. Cobert, of Liebowitz, Cobert & Deixel, New York City (Roy M. Zeig, of Liebowitz, Cobert & Deixel, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Mark F. Hughes, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (Arthur H. Christy, U. S. Atty., and George I. Gordon, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and LUMBARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this case Judge Dawson, sitting without a jury after waiver by the defendant, found as a fact beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant willfully and knowingly neglected to produce certain of the books and papers called for by a summons served upon him by a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service. This finding is amply supported by the evidence. The detailed statement of facts in the court’s memorandum opinion belies defendant’s assertion that it disregarded defendant’s request for special findings of fact under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We also find insubstantial the other alleged errors. Accordingly defendant’s conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7210 is affirmed.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 17, 1995 (129), Para 129.5 Communications]
[Page 1529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.129.5  communications

  Executive and other communications, pursuant to clause 2, rule XXIV, 
were referred as follows:

       1531. A letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     transmitting the annual horse protection enforcement report 
     for fiscal year 1994, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1830; to the 
     Committee on Commerce.
       1532. A letter from the Administrator, General Services 
     Administration, transmitting a report of a building project 
     survey for Oklahoma City, OK, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 606(a); 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
```
[Civ. No. 1093.

Third Appellate District.

March 6, 1913.]

#### P. N. REYNOLDS et al., Respondents, v. PLANADA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.

Appeal—Transcript—Failure to File Within Prescribed Time.— Where the transcript on appeal from a judgment is not served and filed within the time provided by rule 2 of the supreme court, the appeal will be dismissed under rule 5 of that court.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. E. N. Rector, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

W. R. Bacon, for Appellant.

Brickley & Schino, and F. W. Henderson, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment on the ground that appellant has failed tó file its transcript on appeal within the time allowed by law and the rules of the supreme court. Notice of the appeal was given on the eighth day of July, 1912, and, on the twelfth day of said month, the proper undertaking was filed. On the first day of said month a notice of intention to move for a new trial was served and filed and thereafter, on September 10, 1912, a proposed statement on motion for a new *382trial was settled and allowed and, the matter coming oh regularly for hearing, the said motion for a new trial was denied, on October 28, 1912. On the fifth day of November, following, appellant was served with a notice of the order denying said motion. No stipulation was made by the parties extending the time in which to file the transcript and appellant has not requested the clerk of the court below to make or to certify to a correct transcript of the record in said cause. The notice of the motion to dismiss the appeal was served on the twenty-fourth day of January, 1913, and came on regularly for hearing on the tenth day of February, following,. and at that time no transcript was on file in this court and no reason was urged by appellant why the motion to dismiss the appeal should not be granted.

Under the foregoing statement, it is clear that, by virtue of rules 2 and 5 of the supreme court, [160 Cal. xlii, xlvi, 119 Pac. ix, x], the motion herein made should prevail, and it is therefore ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

Chipman, P. J.

Burnett, J.

Hart, J.
-----Original Message-----

From: AARP [mailto:aarpwebact@action.aarp.org] 

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:47 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32: Stop Federal Goverment from taking over yet another industry

Jun 11, 2015

Department of Labor

Dear Labor,

To the Department of Labor:

I am against the Conflict on Interest Rule being presented by the department of labor.

Get Congress involved so this IS NOT A PRESIDENTIAL mandate, which as it is, will probably drive many 

investment advisors out of business, make it considerably more costly and burdensome for good 

advisors, and make it significantly harder for the small investor new retiree to find some an investment 

advisor that will help them.

Remember when we were to by our president that we could keep our doctors and insurance plans 

under the Affordable Care Act? Thousands of Americans lost coverage and doctors, including family 

members of mine.

The current proposal essentially says the retiree is best only served by leaving the money in the 

company's 401k plan. Many employees get no service and advice from their company about their 401k 

plans.

Thank you.

Patti Wells

4734 Highlands Place Circle

Lakeland, FL 33813

Sincerely,

Mrs. Patricia Wells

4734 Highlands Place Circle

Lakeland, FL 33880
Editorial Note on Part 393
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 393 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 393.68 Compressed natural gas fuel containers. ( a ) *Applicability.* The rules in this section apply to compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel containers used for supplying fuel for the operation of commercial motor vehicles or for the operation of auxiliary equipment installed on, or used in connection with commercial motor vehicles.
( b ) *CNG containers manufactured on or after March 26, 1995.* Any motor vehicle manufactured on or after March 26, 1995, and equipped with a CNG fuel tank must meet the CNG container requirements of FMVSS No. 304 (49 CFR 571.304) in effect at the time of manufacture of the vehicle.
( c ) *Labeling.* Each CNG fuel container shall be permanently labeled in accordance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 304, S7.4.
[70 FR 48053, Aug. 15, 2005]
Exhibit 15.2 August 9, 2013 AmeriServ Financial, Inc.216 Franklin StreetP.O. Box 520Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15907-0520 We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of AmeriServ Financial, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2013, as indicated in our report dated August 9, 2013; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, is incorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements: Registration Statement No. 333-176869 on Form S-8Registration Statement No. 333-67600 on Form S-8Registration Statement No. 033-53935 on Form S-8Registration Statement No. 033-55845 on Form S-8Registration Statement No. 033-55207 on Form S-8Registration Statement No. 033-55211 on Form S-8Registration Statement No. 333-129009 on Form S-3Registration Statement No. 333-121215 on Form S-3Registration Statement No. 333-120022 on Form S-3Registration Statement No. 333-50225 on Form S-3Registration Statement No. 033-56604 on Form S-3 We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. Sincerely, /s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29

SCHEDULE OF OMITTED AMENDMENTS TO MANAGEMENT SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENTS

      The following documents have been omitted as Exhibits to this annual
report because they are on substantially identical terms as Exhibit 10.28 in all
material respects.

1.    Amendment No. 1 to Management Equity Rollover Agreement between
      TravelCenters of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Timothy L.
      Doane

2.    Amendment No. 1 to Management Equity Rollover Agreement between
      TravelCenters of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Michael H.
      Hinderliter

3.    Amendment No. 1 to Management Equity Rollover Agreement between
      TravelCenters of America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Steven C. Lee
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2015

s1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2015

151633

HARTLAND GLEN DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 151633

COA: 318843

Tax Tribunal: 00-416369

TOWNSHIP OF HARTLAND,

Respondent-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the 

completion of the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals.
#### § 379.9 Companies going out of business.

The records referred to in the regulations in this part may be destroyed after business is discontinued and the company is completely liquidated. The records may not be destroyed until dissolution is final and all pending transactions and claims are completed. When a company is merged with another company under jurisdiction of the Secretary, the successor company shall preserve records of the merged company in accordance with the regulations in this part.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSpace Station Freedom environmental control and life support system phase 3 simplified integrated test detailed reportA description of the phase 3 simplified integrated test (SIT) conducted at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Core Module Integration Facility (CMIF) in 1989 is presented. This was the first test in the phase 3 series integrated environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS) tests. The basic goal of the SIT was to achieve full integration of the baseline air revitalization (AR) subsystems for Space Station Freedom. Included is a description of the SIT configuration, a performance analysis of each subsystem, results from air and water sampling, and a discussion of lessons learned from the test. Also included is a full description of the preprototype ECLSS hardware used in the test.Document ID19900013277Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRoberts, B. C.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Carrasquillo, R. L.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Dubiel, M. Y.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Ogle, K. Y.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Perry, J. L.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Whitley, K. M.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-4204NAS 1.15:4204Accession Number90N22593Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900013277.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
1210-AB32-2-1320.html[7/26/2015 1:24:19 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvw-6ufu

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1815

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Priscilla Heimbecker

General Comment

We can take care of our own Retirement Plans. We don't need regulations from the federal government to do so!
-----Original Message----- 

From: sasoler@verizon.net [mailto:sasoler@verizon.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:20 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Sharon Soler 

10906 Pebble Run Dr. 

Silver Spring, MD 20902
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/20/15 11:12 AM

Received: July 19, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k2r-qcff

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2536

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Teresa Boettner

General Comment

Dear Sirs,

I can plan for my own retirement and I don't need or want interference from the government 

regarding my 401K plan.

Sincerely,

Teresa Boettner
#### In the Matter of Julius R. Thompson, an Attorney.

— Order granted disbarring him.