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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6638

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PURVIS H. GORMLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-96-6-V; CA-04-613-1-V)

Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Purvis H. Gormley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Purvis H. Gormley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his “Motion for Relief from Final Judgment

[Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)], or Alternatively, Petition for

a Writ of Audita Querela,” as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir.

2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Gormley has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Gormley’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to
- 3 -

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review, or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Gormley’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.01

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 Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended October 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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 the operations of the company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Mark S. Thompson   
|Mark S. Thompson       
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 9, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                40,381
<SECURITIES>                                          10,801
<RECEIVABLES>                                        320,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (1,427)
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       63,608
<PP&E>                                                 12,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                         (1,076)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        386,519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  12,250
<BONDS>                                               275,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                            12,000
<COMMON>                                              125,521
<OTHER-SE>                                            (39,133)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          386,519
<SALES>                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       26,213
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          13,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           47
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     17,413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (4,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (4,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (4,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (0.59)




</TABLE>
No. 69797.

protest 64/4192(A) (New York).

#### Goodman & Weinberg *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Amity*Fabrics, *Inc.*v. *United*
      *876
      *States*(51 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 2416), tbe claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Investigator Initiated Program Project Applications (P01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         October 26, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G76, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marci Scidmore, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities,  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G76, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 627-3255,                         *marci.scidmore@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 14, 2023.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-20322 Filed 9-19-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30485

Summary Calendar

CHESTER BROWN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CV-9121

Before SMITH, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chester Brown, Louisiana prisoner # 97411, was convicted of armed 

robbery and second-degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 

The district court dismissed Brown’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application with 

prejudice and denied his motion to stay the proceedings pending the 

completion of his state post-conviction proceedings. Brown now has filed 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30485 Document: 00515375812 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
No. 19-30485

2

motions for a certificate of appealability (COA) and for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

In his motion for a COA, Brown argues that the district court erred in 

dismissing his claim that he has new evidence, consisting of an affidavit from 

one of his original accusers now stating that Brown did not take any part in 

the crimes, which shows he is actually innocent. To obtain a COA, Brown must 

make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Brown “satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). However, a freestanding claim of actual innocence 

does not state an independently cognizable ground for § 2254 relief. See Kinsel 

v. Cain, 647 F.3d 265, 270 n.20 (5th Cir. 2011). Brown does not raise any other 

claim of constitutional error. Therefore, he has not shown that reasonable 

jurists would debate the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims, 

and his motion for a COA is DENIED. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. In light 

of this determination, his motion for leave to proceed IFP also is DENIED.

Brown also challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to stay his 

§ 2254 proceedings. “A COA is not required to review the district court’s ruling 

on a non-merits issue such as a stay.” Young v. Stephens, 795 F.3d 484, 494 

(5th Cir. 2015). Because he has not shown he will raise a meritorious issue, he 

has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his 

motion to stay the proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 

(2005). The district court’s denial of Brown’s motion to stay his § 2254

proceedings is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-30485 Document: 00515375812 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
From: liturgy@speakeasy.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:01:48 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,

Patrick Clark

San Jose, CA 95118
#### Simpson, Appellant, v. Reynolds.

Corporation: creditor’s remedy against stockholder: garnisiimjsnt. A. stockholder can only be made liable to an execution creditor of the corporation on garnishment when he is in default to the corporation for installments due on his stock, or for calls made by the directors. If his liability is not due according to the terms of his subscription, and no call has been made by the directors, the creditor’s remedy is by special execution awarded under section 13, page 291, Wagner’s Statutes. (Following *Hannah v. Moberly Bank,*67 Mo. 678.)

*595*Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.*— Hon. R. W.Fyann, Judge.

Affirmed.

*James G. Simpson*for appellant.

Norton, J.

This is an action by garnishment on execution, to recover from a stockholder of the Laclede & Fort Scott Railroad Company a balance of unpaid stock. On the 26th day of October, 1872, plaintiff, J. G. Simpson, recovered judgment against the said Laclede & Fort Scott Railroad Company on account, for services rendered, in the sum of $321.25. Several executions were issued and returned not satisfied. On September 18th, 1875, an *alias*execution, credited $60.51, was issued to Dallas county, and returned *nulla bona,*and further showing that M. L. Reynolds had been summoned to answer as garnishee. Said garnishee appeared, and answered that he did not owe said railroad company anything. This answer was denied by plaintiff. Replication filed. -At the spring term of the Polk county circuit court the cause was heard and tried. The evidence showed that the defendant, M. L. Reynolds, at the time of the service of the garnishment upon him, was the holder or owner of one share of the capital stock of the said defendant, the Laclede and Fort Scott Radroad Company, of the par value of $100, for which he had paid $50 only, which sum, he claimed, it was agreed by and between him and one E. Ilovey, vice-president of said railroad company, was, to entitle him to one share of paid up stock of the par value of $100. The circuit court gave judgment for the garnishee defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

In the case of *Hannah v. The Moberly Bank,*67 Mo. 678, it was held that a stockholder could only be made liable to an execution creditor of the corporation on garnishment, when such stockholder was in default to the corporation for installments due on his stock, or for calls made by the directors; and that the liability of a stockholder to a *596corporation for unpaid stock, which is not due according to the terms of his subscription, and for which no calls have been made by the directors, can only be enforced in favor of a judgment creditor by a special execution awarded according to the provisions of Wagner’s Statutes, page 291, section 13. The above case is decisive of this, and the judgment will be affirmed,

with the concurrence of the other judges.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from 10QSB for
nine months  ended Sept.  30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         155,026<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,026
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 155,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          58,641
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       45
<OTHER-SE>                                     93,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,026
<SALES>                                        2,636<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,636<F2>
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               61,270
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (61,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (61,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (61,270)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.30)
        

<FN>
<F1> Includes restricted cash
<F2> Interest Income
</FN>



</TABLE>
EX-34.3
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
350 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles CA 90071
Telephone (213) 356 6000
Facsimile (813) 637 4444
www.pwc.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors
Newport Management Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria, that Newport Management Corporation (the Company) complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(4)(xi) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the pools of loans which Aurora Loan
Services, LLC acted as the servicer pursuant to the applicable transaction
agreements, underlying publicly and/or privately-issued residential
mortgage-backed securities that were issued on or after January 1, 2006, on
which escrow payments were disbursed in 2008 (the Platform), as of December 31,
2008 and for the year then ended. The Company has determined that the remainder
of the servicing criteria is not applicable to the activities it performs with
respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008. Schedule
A to management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions
and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
February 26, 2009