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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7421

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RATHDAPHONE VONGDEUANE,

Defendant – Appellant.

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

Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:14-cr-00400-HMH-9; 6:17-

cv-02162-HMH)

Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rathdaphone Vongdeuane, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jeanne Howard, Assistant United 

States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rathdaphone Vongdeuane seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief 

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard 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 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. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vongdeuane 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
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On January 3, 17 and 25, 2006, plaintiff filed interrogatories. Plaintiff is informed

that court permission is not necessary for discovery requests and that neither discovery requests

served on an opposing party nor that party's responses should be filed until such time as a party

becomes dissatisfied with a response and seeks relief from the court pursuant to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Discovery requests between the parties shall not be filed with the court

unless, and until, they are at issue. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's January 3, 17 and

25, 2006, requests are disregarded.

DATED: April 24, 2006.

\004;\arms2136.411c

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 94 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stanford Butler, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 551]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings *459County (Juviler, J.), rendered April 6, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that there was legally insufficient evidence supporting his conviction because the testimony of an eyewitness to the crime was incredible as a matter of law is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that an eyewitness has a criminal history will not render that witness’s testimony incredible as a matter of law *(see, People v Walker,*215 AD2d 607), especially when the criminal history is fully explored before the jury. In addition, any minor inconsistency in the witness’s testimony regarding tangential matters will not render the witness’s testimony incredible as a matter of law *(see, People v Walker, supra; People v Stackhouse,*201 AD2d 686). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The imposition of consecutive sentences for murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree was not illegal *(see,*Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; *People v Brown,*80 NY2d 361; *People v Sumpter,*203 AD2d 605).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MARY JANE GROVE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 98-1907 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-515-R) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 4, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Charles R. Stack, Michael B. Feiler, HIGH, STACK, LAZENBY, PALAHACH, MAXWELL, & PLATT, Coral Gables, Florida, for Appellant. Edward H. Starr, Jr., MAYS & VALENTINE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Mary Jane Grove appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in this civil action. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), the district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if the appellant files a motion for such an extension no later than thirty days after the appeal period has expired. A decision whether to extend the appeal period lies within the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996). In the district court, Grove's only attempt at showing the"excusable neglect or good cause" required by Rule 4(a)(5) was counsel's contention that the United States Postal Service did not deliver the notice of appealas he had assumed it would. As we have previously stated, "a nonprisoner litigant who entrusts his filing with the postal processes, without taking further steps to ensure that the notice of appeal is timely `filed' with the district court, cannot establish excusable neglect." Id. Grove has not shown how the district court's adherence to this holding was an abuse of discretion. See James v. Jacobson , 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993). While the circumstances surrounding the failure of the notice to arrive in the district court might support a court's decision to extend the appeal period, there was no abuse of discretion in reaching the opposite conclusion. In exercising its discretion to reach its decision, the district court did not ignore judicially recognized factors or rely on an erroneous factual findings or legal conclusions. See id. Because the district court did not exceed its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, we affirm the district court's order. We dispensewith 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.
AFFIRMED
2
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 16

- 00490

- CR

Filiberto Ramon I I a/k/a Filiberto Ramon

v. The State of Texas

On a ppeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2016

- DCR

- 897

- C

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS , having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED AS
MODIFIED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 4 , 2018
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2911427-SEP-201212:06 PM
Exhibit
      32.2




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 General Steel Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Commission on February 12, 2007 (the “Report”), I, John Chen, Chief Financial
      Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 operations of the Company.


Date:
                February 12, 2007/s/
                John ChenBy:
                John Chen
                Title:
                  Director and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4857 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4857

 To eliminate the period of limitations for certain offenses, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2024

 Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Lankford) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To eliminate the period of limitations for certain offenses, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthening Prosecution Integrity 
for Espionage Statutes Act'' or the ``SPIES Act''.

SEC. 2. OFFENSES INVOLVING ESPIONAGE, PROCUREMENT OF CITIZENSHIP OR 
              NATURALIZATION UNLAWFULLY, OR HARBORING OR CONCEALING 
              PERSONS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3302. Espionage offenses
    ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an indictment may be 
found or an information may be instituted at any time without 
limitation for--
            ``(1) a violation of section 951 or a conspiracy to violate 
        such section;
            ``(2) a violation of section 794 or a conspiracy to violate 
        such section; or
            ``(3) a violation of section 1425, if the offense was 
        committed to facilitate a violation of section 951.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 213 of 
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``3302. Espionage offenses.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 19 of the Internal Security Act 
of 1950 (18 U.S.C. 792 note; 64 Stat. 1005) is amended by striking ``, 
793, or 794'' and inserting ``or 793''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Kronos Worldwide,  Inc. (the Company)
on Form  10-Q  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2006 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harold C.
Simmons,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  and I, Gregory M. Swalwell,
Chief Financial 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 operations of the Company.




/s/ Harold C. Simmons
---------------------------
Harold C. Simmons
   Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Gregory M. Swalwell
---------------------------
Gregory M. Swalwell
   Chief Financial Officer


November 6, 2006


Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

Mr. Dennis 1. DeVany 

Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: DOT-OST 1998-4899 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

January 19,2011 

SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR 

3132 CHANNEL DRIVE 

PO Box 112500 

JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-2500 

FAX: (907) 586-8365 

PHONE: (907) 465-3900 

» 

l.v 

N 

This letter is to express support for the continuation of the Essential Air Service (EAS) program 

in Alaska and the crucial connection it brings to our remote communities. 

Due to the isolated location of these communities and the complete lack of any road system 

connection, this subsidized air service is their only form of scheduled air transportation. The 

communities of Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat depend on scheduled 

airfreight, passenger and mail service for basic necessities, routine medical and health services, 

and economic welfare. 

The State of Alaska continues to assert that the local residents are best positioned to comment on 

particular schedules or air carriers and therefore we leave those specific areas for the community 

to comment on. 

I respectfully urge US DOT to support and continue the EAS service to these Southeast 

communities. 

Sincerely, 1\ 

Steven 

./ l~ D. Hatter 

Deputy Commissioner of Aviation 

cc: Marc Luiken, Commissioner, DOT &PF
Are you 

at risk 

for oral 

cancer? 

What African American men need to know 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

National Institutes of Health 
Are African 

American men at 

risk for oral cancer? 
Yes, African American men are one of the 

groups at highest risk for oral cancer– 

but many don’t know it. 

Most cases of oral cancer are linked to cigarette smoking, heavy alcohol use, 

or the use of both tobacco and alcohol together. In fact, using tobacco plus 

alcohol poses a much greater risk than using either substance alone. 

Certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) may also play a part in 

oral cancer. 

It’s not just smokeless tobacco (“dip” and “chew”). 

Using tobacco of any kind, including cigarettes, 

puts you at risk for oral cancer. 

The risk of oral cancer increases with age. 

Most oral cancers occur after age 40. 
What are the symptoms 

of oral cancer? 
Possible Signs 

& Symptoms 

A sore, irritation, lump or thick patch in 

your mouth, lip, or throat 

A white or red patch in your mouth 

A feeling that something is caught in 

your throat 

Difficulty chewing or swallowing 

Difficulty moving your jaw or tongue 

Numbness in your tongue or other areas 

of your mouth 

Swelling of your jaw that causes dentures 

to fit poorly or become uncomfortable 

Pain in one ear without hearing loss 

Be on the lookout for any changes in your mouth, 

especially if you smoke or drink. 
What should you 

do if you have 

symptoms? 
 

See a doctor or dentist if any symptoms last 

more than 2 weeks. 

Most often, symptoms (like those listed in the previous section) do not mean 

cancer. An infection or another problem can cause the same symptoms. But 

it’s important to get them checked out—because if you do have cancer, it can 

be treated more successfully if it’s caught early. 
Ask for an oral cancer exam. 

It’s quick, painless, and it 

could save your life. 
About Oral Cancer 

The term oral cancer 

includes cancers of 

the mouth and the 

pharynx (FAIR-inks), 

part of the throat. 

The Oral Cancer Exam 

An oral cancer examination can detect early signs 

of cancer. The exam is painless—and takes only a 

few minutes. 

During the exam, your doctor or dentist will check 

your face, neck, lips, entire mouth, and the back of 

your throat for possible signs of cancer. 
“Are you at risk for oral cancer? What African American men 

need to know” is produced and distributed by the National 

Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research in partnership 

with the National Cancer Institute, components of the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. Part of the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIH is one of the 

world’s foremost medical research centers and the federal focal 

point for medical research in the United States. 

For additional copies of this publication contact:
 

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
 

National Oral Health Information Clearinghouse
 

1 NOHIC Way
 

Bethesda, MD 20892 3500
 

1 866 232–4528
 

http://www.nidcr.nih.gov
 

NIH Publication No. 11-6101
 

Revised March 2011
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 Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. 

*Docket Number:*                     OST-2007-27218.                 

*Date Filed:*                     February 6, 2007.                 

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                 

*Subject:*                     Mail Vote 526—Resolution 010j, TC3 Japan, Korea-South East Asia, Special Passenger Amending Resolution, Between Hong Kong SAR and Korea (Rep. of); Intended effective date: 15 February 2007.                 

Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. E7-4073 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1363

BANK OF AMERICA, NA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. NELSON L. BRUCE , Defendant

- Appellant , and SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSING TRUST FUND; CHARLESTON AREA CDC; SC HOUSING CORP; CAP IT AL RETURN INVESTMENTS LLC; REMINISCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC , Defendants.

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

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv
- 02617

- RMG )

Submitted : June 14, 2018 Decided: June 18, 2018

Before TRAXLER , DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Nelson L. Bruce , Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Stuart Vesely , ALBERTELLI LAW , Tampa, Florida, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Nelson L. Bruce seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and remanding this foreclosure proceeding to
the South Carolina state court from which it was removed. Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012).
The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1 447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Thus, “§ 1447(d) is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders
within the scope of

. . . § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction [raised by a timely motion]. ” Doe v. Blair , 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal q uotation omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United
States , 213 F.3d 819, 824 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court remanded on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order and
dismiss th is appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4083 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.