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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8143

RODERICK MCRAE, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. COLIE RUSHTON, Warden, McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (9:07-cv-01521-HFF)

Submitted: August 3, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roderick McRae, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roderick McRae seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El

v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McRae 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### Sevich, Appellant, *v.*Commonwealth.

Argued March 18, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*William J. Joyce,*with him *Martin, E. Gusick, P. Raymond Bartholomew,*and *Gusick, Madden, Joyce & McKay,*for appellant.

*David A. Johnston, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *WilUam G. Bennett,*Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.

*69April 23, 1969:

Opinion

Pee Curiam,

Elizabeth Sevich is the owner of property in Mercer County, 15.194 acres of which was condemned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of constructing a portion of Interstate 80. A Board of View, appointed upon the request of the Commonwealth, fixed damages in the amount of 820,000. The condemnee appealed to the Court of Common Pleas and, after trial, the jury awarded damages in the amount of fl5,000. The condemnee then filed this appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict. We affirm.

Appellant, the verdict winner in the court below, alleges three trial errors in support of her appeal, but has failed to demonstrate how these purported errors have prejudiced her case. Under such circumstances, our decisions in *Rankin v. McCurry,*402 Pa. 494, 166 A. 2d 536 (1961), and *Granowitz v. Erie Redevelopment Authority,*432 Pa. 243, 247 A. 2d 623 (1968), are controlling.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Roberts concurs in the result.
Exhibit 32.10

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Managed Futures Index Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his 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 Managed Futures Index Series.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                               
|Robert J. Enck                                                                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC,           
|the Managing Owner of Managed Futures Index Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                 
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                  
|Brent Bales                                                                      
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC,                         
|the Managing Owner of Managed Futures Index Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund

Date: August 13, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis Padmore, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 215]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered July 28, 1994, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*664Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged with rape in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child. He was convicted of the latter count and acquitted of all of the other counts. He now challenges his conviction on the grounds that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. He also asserts that Penal Law § 260.10 (1) is unconstitutional as applied to him.

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. Under the circumstances of this case, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that the defendant "knowingly act[ed] in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of’ the complainant (Penal Law § 260.10 [1]; *see, People v Parr,*155 AD2d 945; *People v McCaskill,*117 AD2d 757; *People v Ahlers,*98 AD2d 821; *People v Doe,*137 Misc 2d 582). 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]). Although the defendant’s sister, who was present in the residence at the time of the incident, contradicted some of the complainant’s testimony, resolution of issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88).

We reject the defendant’s contention that Penal Law § 260.10 (1) was unconstitutional as applied to him. A reasonable man would have been aware that actions such as those committed by the defendant would have endangered the "life, limb, health or morals” of the complainant herein *(see, People v Bergerson,*17 NY2d 398, 403-404; *see also, People v Bright,*71 NY2d 376). To the extent that *People v Villacis*(143 Misc 2d 568) is contrary to this conclusion, it is overruled *(see, People v Alexander,*149 Misc 2d 361; *People v Morbelli,*144 Misc 2d 482; *People v Ali,*144 Misc 2d 543). O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
#### MOREIRA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 98 *N. J. Super.*570.

*Messrs. Pindar, McElroy, Qonnell & Foley*and *Mr. George J. Kenny*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Salvatore J. Ruggiero*for the respondent.

April 30, 1968.

Denied.
Attachment PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 

### tiAN il'tZED
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8208 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to finalize, implement, or enforce 

the interim final rule of the Bureau of Industry and Security relating 

to enhancing the control structure for firearms and related items and 

advancing human rights issued on April 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 34680). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee (for himself, Mr. OGLES, Mrs. HARSHBARGER, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. CLINE, Mr. HIGGINS of 

Louisiana, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. CLYDE, Mr. BEAN

of Florida, and Mr. BABIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to finalize, implement, 

or enforce the interim final rule of the Bureau of Industry and Security relating to enhancing the control structure for firearms and related items and advancing human 

rights issued on April 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 34680). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop the Bureaucratic 

5 Ineptitude Shuttering Respectable and Upstanding Law6 ful Exporters Act’’ or the ‘‘Stop the BIS Rule Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8208 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO FI2 NALIZE, IMPLEMENT, OR ENFORCE PRO3 POSED BIS RULE. 

4 No Federal funds may be used to finalize, implement, 

5 or enforce the interim final rule of the Bureau of Industry 

6 and Security relating to enhancing the control structure 

7 for firearms and related items and advancing human 

8 rights issued on April 26, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 34680). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00239-CV

In re Danny Eaton §

§

§

§

§

Original Proceeding

From the 360th District Court

of Tarrant County (360-557201-14)

September 25, 2014

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator 

Danny Eaton. We conditionally grant relator’s petition. Writ will issue only if the 

trial court fails to vacate the temporary orders granting spousal support and 

interim attorney’s fees and return the monies deposited in the trial court’s registry 

to Danny Eaton.

It is ordered that real party in interest Donna Rogers Eaton shall pay all 

costs of this proceeding, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel____________

 Justice Lee Gabriel
May 17, 1978

#### In the Matter of Request for Investigation of Daniel C Devine.

(Docket No. 57315.)

*Kenneth B. McConnell*for respondent.

On order of the Court, the request for investigation having been referred to Wayne County Hearing Panel No. 18, the hearing panel having transmitted its findings and recommendations to this Court and the record having been considered, it is hereby ordered that the complaint dated October 25, 1976 by the State Bar Grievance Administrator against Daniel C. Devine be dismissed with prejudice.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket No. CP05-92-003] 

Take notice that on March 16, 2007, Liberty Gas Storage, LLC, tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets attached to the filing, with an effective date of April 15, 2007. 

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding. 

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                 

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                 

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 28, 2007.                 

Philis J. Posey, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-5513 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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  Annual  Report  of  Calypso  Financial  Services,
Inc.(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2001, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Edward F. Cowle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to Sec.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

          (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 result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
----------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Chief Executive Officer
September 28, 2004

          A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906,
          or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting
          the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
          of this written statement 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. The foregoing certifications are
          accompanying  the Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906
          of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
          1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not being
          filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
No. 57359.

protest 185445-K (New York).

#### Art & Sign Brush Mfg. Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

-In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hair pencils similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Solo Horton Brush Co. (Inc.)*v. *United States*(63 Treas. Dec. 143, T. D. 46123), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10154)

#### Korlis, Ltd. *v.*United States

Entry No. DE-29780.

(Decided January 30, 1962)

*Barnes, Richardson & Oolburn*for the plaintiff.

*William, H. Orrich, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LaweeNCe, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain bicycles and parts thereof imported from the United Kingdom forms the subject of the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that, on or about the date of exportation of the involved merchandise, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, at prices equal to the invoiced unit values, less the prorated portion of the items invoiced as ocean freight to New York and insurance.

Upon the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the bicycles and parts in issue and that said value is equal to the invoiced unit values herein, less the prorated portion of the items invoiced as ocean freight to New York and insurance.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

March 1, 1911.)

No. 54.

Appeal and Error (§ 694*) — Review—Insufficiency of Record.

In an action *by*the United States against a railroad company for violation of the safety appliance laws, in which the statement of claim contained a large number of counts relating to different cars, and the trial court granted a compulsory nonsuit on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict on any count, its action will not be reversed by the appellate court, where the record is in such condition that it is unable to determine what evidence applies to any particular car or count.

[Ed. Note. — Ebr other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent Dig. § 2910; Dec. Dig. § 694.*]

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Action by the United States against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and the United States bring error. -

Affirmed.

See, also, 176 Fed. 114.

John H. Jordan, U. S. Atty., and Philip J. Doherty, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty.

Johns McCleave, for defendant in error.

Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and LANNING, Circuit Judges.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes.

*487BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This was an action brought by the United States against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company to recover penalties for .alleged violation of the safety appliance laws. The statement filed embraced 37 different causes of action, of which a number were subsequently withdrawn, but leaving 22 for consideration in this case. The trial consumed a week, and a large number of witnesses were examined. At the termination of the case the court granted a compulsory nonsuit, and subsequently refused to take it off, saying:

> “Inasmuch, therefore, as the plaintiff did not offer evidence sufficient to sustain a verdict upon any one of the several causes of action, the motion to take off the nonsuit must be refused.”

Each of the judges of this court separately, and all of them jointly, have examined and discussed the voluminous testimony, and, owing to the way in which it was taken, we are unable to intelligently apply it to the cars mentioned in the numerous counts. • Nor are we aided in that respect by the briefs in a specific reference to 'testimony applicable to particular cars or particular counts. Under such conditions we are unable to determine whether there was or was not evidence to go to the jury on particular counts, or, indeed, to ascertain with certainty the actual facts involved, and thus have an assured basis with reference to which the statute could be construed.

In the absence, therefore, of any satisfactory showing that the court below committed error in withdrawing the case from the jury, and without expressing any opinion as to the construction placed by it on the statutes, we affirm its action in refusing to take off the nonsuit.
P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1865 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 32 ) IV-E-2 0
Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20089:15:28AM

Sheet 32 of 105P. 2 

# RADIA N A- A 3-9 7 coRixMurtoN n W W Cm % IV-E-2 0

TELEPHON E CAL L REPOR T - INDUSTRIA L BOILE RSO, , NSP S

DATE : Jun e 2 , 198 6 TO : Mr . Stev e Winber g

Manager , Industria l Sale s Foster-Wheele r Corporatio n 11 0 Sout hOrang e Avenu e Livingston , N . J . 0703 9 FROM : TomWaddell , Radia nCorporatio n SUBJECT : Sulfu r Dioxid e Remova l Guarantee s fo r

Fluidize dBe dCombustio n(FBC ) Unit s

Mr . Stev e Winber g state dtha t Foster-Wheele r make s decision s onS0 ? remova l guarantee s fo r thei r FB C unit s onth e basi s o f th e specifi c fue l typ e andlimeston e t o b e used . Ingeneral , fo r coal s currentl y bein g use d inFB C units , a t leas t 9 0 percen t S0 2 remova l i s guaranteed . However , Foster-Wheele r i s no t t o b e quote da s guaranteein g 9 0 percen t S0 2 remova l fo r al l thei r FB C units , becaus e guarantee s ar e cas e specific . FB C unit s ca nachiev e wel l abov e 9 0 percen t S0 2 remova l whe nusin g reactiv e limeston e andincrease dlimeston e fee drates . Th e increase d limeston e additio nwil l rais e operatin g andmaintenanc e cost s bu t wil l no t necessaril y

creat e reliabilit y

problems . FB C unit s ca nb e designe dt o operat e a t thes e highe r limeston e loading s withou t advers e impact s onth e syste m reliability .
July 9, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LESLIE WM. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00458-CV V.

WELDON S. GUEST AND REGENOSYS, INC., Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on April 22, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

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

appellant, Leslie Wm. Adams & Associates.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.