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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00017-RJC-DCK-6; 3:19-cv00018-RJC)

Submitted: February 18, 2021 Decided: February 23, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
U.S. Naval Forces Rescue Mariners from Sinking Ship in Gulf of Aden
 
  By 5th Fleet Public Affairs - NAVCENT
  GULF OF ADEN – A U.S. Naval ship assigned to U.S. 5th Fleet provided emergency assistance to a motor vessel in distress in the Gulf of Aden, June 7. The Military Sealift Command fleet replenishment oiler USNS Patuxent (T-AO 201) was notified by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations watch center that motor vessel Falcon Line had experienced engine failure and was taking on water. Upon notification of the situation, Patuxent proceeded at maximum speed to rescue the crew of Falcon Line before the ship completely sank. After arriving on scene, Patuxent shielded the Falcon Line crew from heavy winds and high seas so the crew could board lifeboats. Patuxent safely recovered the 15 crew members and provided them with food, water and a medical screening.  U.S. 5th Fleet is coordinating with the owner of Falcon Line and other authorities to determine the most appropriate location to debark the crew members. The U.S. 5th Fleet regularly works with coalition forces, regional partners and the shipping industry to maintain the regional awareness necessary to facilitate aid like this to mariners in distress. “As professional mariners, our forces have a duty to help those in need at sea,” said Navy Capt. Michael O’Driscoll, commander of Task Force (TF) 53. “The sailors and civilian mariners aboard ships like Patuxent have answered this call before, and they will continue to do so whenever possible.” The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) outlines the obligation of all mariners to provide assistance to those in distress at sea. The U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations encompasses about 2.5 million square miles of water area and includes the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean. The expanse is comprised of 20 countries and includes three critical choke points at the Strait of Hormuz, the Suez Canal and the Strait of Bab al Mandeb at the southern tip of Yemen.
#### LEE *v.*PEEK et al.

No. 426.

Decided December 3, 1962.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
From: paul.bethel@bcbsla.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:01:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Paul Bethel

Baton Rouge, LA 70816
From: joankay@cwnet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:17:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

This is totally against what our American government should be doing. So I am writing today to ask in

the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all "contraceptives"

and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. If you do

not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations that provide

individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I strongly oppose the

government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and devices that I

oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joan Foresman

Napa, CA 94558
i= } . j Page | of 1
AUG 3.0 2011 REC -]208G)-/o
LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS As of: August 30, 2011

BRANCH Received: August 14, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 30, 2011

Tracking No. 80ce0a53
Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0041
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Unknown A Submitter Information

General Comment

This is not appropriate or resonable for government to mandate this to anyone in our society. Birth
control pills are not medically necessary and pregnancy is not a disease or an accident.
Remember, your mother was prolife. If not parents then society should be teaching responsible
methods of birthcontrol that promote health and respect. Birth control pills are already available,
and if that is the method a women chooses then she should be responsible for her decision and
either pay for them herself or find another alternative that is already available. To say that
religious institutions that are abundant and provide the community with it's healthcare should be
providing this is against there beliefs and if they were to close there doors or sell facilities because
of a mandate THEN society would surely be lost.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=0900... 8/30/2011
Hillsborough,)

June 6, 1911.

#### John H. Pray *&*Sons Co. *v.*Appledore Land & Building Co.

A contract whereby the owners of a hotel agree to allow their lessee a certain sum for equipment does not constitute the latter their agent to make the purchases, nor render them liable to his vendors therefor.

Assumpsit, to recover for a lot of carpeting. Transferred from the January term, 1911, of the superior court by Mitchell, J., on the plaintiffs’ exception to an order of nonsuit.

May 1, 1909, the defendants leased the hotel on Appledore Island to the Nunns Hotel Company for the term of three years. The latter company covenanted to “put the hotel in suitable condition and repair at the commencement of said term, both inside and out,” and to furnish a new pump, and the defendants agreed to allow $325 “for said repairs and pump” out of the last instalment of the first year’s rent. May 4, there was executed a supplementary agreement whereby the defendants were to allow the Hotel Company a further sum not to exceed $700, for the purpose of enabling the lessees “to fulfil said covenant contained in said *168lease” and to purchase the necessary furnishing for the hotel, said sum to be paid upon presentation to the defendants of the original bills. The Hotel Company purchased the carpeting and directed that it be charged to the defendants; but when a bill was sent to the defendants, they returned it with a denial of their liability.

*Arthur 8. Healy,*for the plaintiffs.

*Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren,*for the defendants.

Young, J.

The question before the court is not whether the defendants may owe the Hotel Company, but whether the supplementary agreement made the Hotel Company the defendants’ agents to equip and repair the hotel; in other words, the question is the intention of the parties as evidenced by that agreement. If the words they used are given their ordinary meaning, the Hotel Company were to put the hotel in complete repair inside and out; and when that was done, the defendants were to pay them $700 and allow them $325 more out of the last instalment of the first year’s rent, provided the repairs and equipment cost as much as $1,025. As there is nothing to show that this was not the sense in which the words were used, the order must be,

*Judgment for the defendants.*

All concurred.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 20 - 00250 - CV CURTIS CAPPS AND THE UNKNOWN HEIRS AND PUBLICATION HEIRS OF ALEX SCOTT, DECEASED, APPELLANTS V. CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS , A TEXAS HOME R U LE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION D/B/A BRYAN TEXAS UTILITIES, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 361st District Court 1 Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 1 9 - 000070 - CV - 361 , Honorable Steve Smith , Presiding 

### November 17 , 2020 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS , JJ. Appellants, Curtis Capp s and the Unknown Heirs and Publication Heirs of Alex Scott, deceased, appeal from the trial court’s Order Granting, in Part, and Den ying, in Part, City of Bryan’s Motion for Traditional Summary Judgment . Now pending before th is Court is “ Appellants’ Joint M otio n to V oluntar ily D ismiss A ppeal . ” The Court finds the

1 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2013).2

motion complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the Court has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to the motion, costs will be taxed against Appellants . T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey
Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Edward J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.








/s/
Edward J. Graham


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


Name:  Edward
J. Graham


Title:  Chief
Executive Officer


November
10, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19293]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6951-018]


Tallassee Shoals, LLC; Notice of Waiver of Water Quality 
Certification

    On September 15, 2021, Tallassee Shoals, LLC. filed an application 
for a new license for the Tallassee Shoals Hydroelectric Project 
(project) in the above captioned docket. On August 12, 2022, Tallassee 
Shoals, LLC. filed with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 
a request for water quality certification for the project under section 
401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
    On September 2, 2022, staff provided the certifying authority with 
written notice pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6(b) that the applicable 
reasonable period of time for the state to act on the certification 
request was one (1) year from the date of receipt of the request, and 
that the certification requirement for the license would be waived if 
the certifying authority failed to act by August 12, 2023. Because the 
state did not act by August 12, 2023, we are notifying you pursuant to 
40 CFR 121.9(c), and section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 
U.S.C. 1341(a)(1), that waiver of the certification requirement has 
occurred.

    Dated: August 31, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19293 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Central Command

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  ABOUT US    -  COMMAND PRIORITIES             
  -  LEADERSHIP             
  -  COMPONENT COMMANDS             
  -  HISTORY             
  -  POSTURE STATEMENT 
-  CENTCOM AOR    -  CENTCOM COALITION 
-  OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES    -  USMTM 
-  CONTACT    -  OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT             
  -  COMMUNITY RELATIONS             
  -  THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE             
  -  INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL             
  -  MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL 
-  MEDIA    -  SOCIAL MEDIA             
  -  NEWS ARTICLES             
  -  PRESS RELEASES             
  -  STATEMENTS             
  -  IMAGERY             
  -  VIDEOS             
  -  TRANSCRIPTS 
-  VISITORS AND PERSONNEL    -  FAMILY CENTER             
  -  FAMILY READINESS             
  -  CENTCOM WEBMAIL             
  -  SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY             
  -  ACCOUNTABILITY             
  -  EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS             
  -  USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS             
  -  FOIA LIBRARY             
  -  INNOVATION OASIS             
  -  WELCOME GUIDE 

HomeMEDIANEWS ARTICLESNews Article View

# CENTCOM’s Navy leaders give back to Tampa Bay healthcare heroes

By Capt. Jennifer CruzU.S. Central Command Public Affairs

                TAMPA, Fla.  –              

                U.S. Central Command Navy senior enlisted leaders pose for a photo with lunches donated by the CENTCOM’s Chief Petty Officer Association to Tampa General Hospital employees on May 14, 2020.            

                CENTCOM’s Navy Leaders Give Back to Tampa Bay Healthcare Heroes            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Capt. Jennifer Cruz

VIRIN: 200514-D-D0477-101

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             960
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                       926
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         270,795
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 245,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        158,692
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                      79,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   245,371
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,405
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,491
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,579
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,062)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,062)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    256
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,806)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.96)
        

</TABLE>
Page | of 1

“REGC--[20 595 ]-/0

AL PROCESSING DIVISION As of: August 31, 2011
HEA CATION & REGULATIONS Received: August 11, 2011
BE ARCE Status: Posted
PUBLIC SUBMISSION __ Posted: August 31, 2011
Tracking No. 80ede0d1
‘(Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0075
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

Untnown 4 Submitter Information

General Comment

This rule is blatantly discriminatory against any who have religious or conscience objections to
contraception or abortion. It forces citizens who participate in health insurance plans to cover with
their premiums the cost of other participants abortions and contraceptives. That is a moral wrong.

In addition, they should not be covered anyway because they are not health care. Abortions (and
morning after pills can be called nothing else) are not healthy for the embryo. And they are not
particularly healthy in the long term for the woman who takes them, and the same is true of
contraceptives--there are long-term negative side-effects. How can pills that make people sick be
called health care?

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectlId=0900... 8/31/2011