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

**No. 11**  **- 6848** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARCUS DWAYNE PARHAM , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Wester n District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Richard L. Voorhees , District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00051

- RLV

- DCK

- 2; 5:11

- cv 00063

- RLV )

Submitted : December 6, 2011 Decided: December 19, 2011

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marcus Dwayne Parham, Appellant Pro Se. Kelli Hamby Ferry, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Marcu s Dwayne Parham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2011 ) 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) ( 200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demons trating 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 cou rt 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 indep endently reviewed the record and conclude that Parham 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 legal3 contentions are adequately pr esented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6573]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-377-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

April 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, One Hundredth Revised Sheet No. 9, 
to become effective March 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone 
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on 
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before 
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions 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 or intervention 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#df999a8d9c90b1b3b6b1ba8caaafafb0adab9fb9baadbcf1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f292a3d2c20010306010a3c1a1f1f001d1b2f090a1d0c41080019">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6573 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 4035** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ARTURO ABURTO SANCHEZ, a/k/a Gustavo , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00100

- MR

- DLH

- 1 )

Submitted : September 13 , 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
David G. Belser, BELSER & PARKE, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorne y, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Arturo Aburto Sanchez appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012)
. He argues that sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to object to

one paragraph of the presentence report, ask for a variance, and present mitigating evidence that might have justified a variance
. We aff irm. A prisoner “may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance on direct appeal if and only if it conclusively appears from the record that counsel did not provide effective assistance.” United States v. Galloway , 749 F.3d 2 38, 241 (4th Cir. 2014 ) (alteration and ellipsis omitted). Absent such a showing, ineffective assistance claims should be raised in a motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit sufficient development of the record. United Stat es v. Baptiste , 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the record here does not conclusively establish the alleged grounds for Sanchez’s claims, Sanchez does not meet this demanding standard. These claims should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because Sanchez raises no claims that can be resolved in this appeal, we dismiss the appeal
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISS ED
# C_2007155EN.01000701.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/7

---

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany)) — Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH v Finanzamt Emmendingen

(Case C-492/04) (1)

1

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Free movement of capital - Freedom of establishment - Taxation - Corporation tax - Loan agreement between companies - Resident borrowing company - Shareholder lending company established in a non-member country - Meaning of ‘substantial holding’ - Payment of loan interest - Classification - Covert distribution of profits)

(2007/C 155/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties

Applicant: Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Emmendingen

Defendant:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Articles 56(1) EC, 57(1) EC and 58 EC — National tax legislation — Tax on profits of companies — Taxation as a covert distribution of profits of the interest paid by a national company on loan capital from a shareholder company established in a non-member country

Operative part of the order

A national measure in accordance with which the loan interest paid by a resident capital company to a non-resident shareholder who has a substantial holding in the capital of that company is, under certain conditions, regarded as a covert distribution of profits, taxable in the hands of the resident borrowing company, primarily affects freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC et seq. Those provisions cannot be relied on in a situation involving a company in a non-member country.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.

1

---
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
Post Office Box 26149
Richmond, VA 23260-6149
1-800-634-7928

SUN TRUST (LOGO)

MTG PRTNRSHP FINANCE CORP
C/O NORWEST BANK, MINN NA
11000 BROKEN LAND PARKWAY
COLUMBIA, MD. 21044
ATN: LN ACCTING DEPT.
RE:ANNUAL SERVICING CERTIFICATION

In connection with the loans serviced by SunTrust Mortgage Inc. for MTG PRTNRSHP
FINANCE CORP, I, the  undersigned  officer,  hereby  certify the following as of
December 31, 1999:

*    All real estate taxes,  special assessments and any charges that may become
     a lien upon the  property and which  became due in the last  calendar  year
     have been paid.  This also  includes  verification  of payment  with taxing
     authorities for non-impound accounts.

*    For those loans with  escrow/impound  accounts for the payment of taxes and
     insurance,  sufficient  amounts are being collected  monthly to provide for
     payment of future amounts due.

*    All FHA  insurance  premiums or private  mortgage  insurance  premiums,  if
     applicable, have been paid and such coverage is in full force and effect.

*    All  properties  are  adequately  insured  against  casualty  loss and,  if
     applicable,  flood loss and we are in  possession  of the  original  hazard
     insurance and flood insurance policies.

*    Fidelity Bond coverage of $100,000,000 and Errors and Omissions coverage of
     $28,500,000 is adequate and in place and the applicable  premiums have been
     paid.

*    All interest and/or monthly payment  adjustments for ARM and GPM loans have
     been made in accordance with the mortgage  terms.  Timely and proper notice
     of such changes was provided to to the mortgagor.

*    All property inspections have been completed according to the provisions of
     our Servicing Agreement, if applicable.

*    The P&I  custodial  account and any clearing  accounts are  maintained in a
     depository  institution  the  deposits  of which  are  insured  by the Bank
     Insurance Fund. The depository institution meets or exceeds the most recent
     financial rating requirements set forth by FNMA.

*    We have complied with all other provisions of the Servicing Agreement.

*    We are in compliance  with IRS  requirements  and all federal,  state,  and
     local laws for  reporting  the  receipt of  interest,  payment of fees,  or
     acquisition of properties.

*    To  the  best  of my  knowledge  and  upon  reasonable  investigation,  the
     servicing  of the  Mortgage  Loans  during  the  preceding  year  has  been
     conducted  in  compliance  with  all  other  provisions  of  the  Servicing
     Agreement(s)/Purchase  and Sale  Agreement(s)  barring such  exceptions  as
     listed.  Any exceptions to this  certification  are listed on an attachment
     along with explanations concerning their completion. If none are listed, it
     should be considered that there are no exceptions.


BY:  Deborah D. Mobley
     (signature)


    DATE: March 23,2000

    Deborah D. Mobley, VP
    (name and title)
#### Enoch H. Gurney, Resp’t, *v.*The Union Transfer & Storage Co., App’lt.

*(New York Superior Court, General Term,*

*Filed February 6, 1890.)*

Costs—Extba Allowance.

In equity cases it is proper for the referee to make an additional allowance in the conclusion of law.

Appeal by defendant from an order denying defendant’s motion to strike out from judgment a provision for an additional sum as costs, and for a stay of proceedings upon the judgment

*Henry 0.*Andrew, for app’lt; *A. G. Fransioli,*for resp’t.

Sedgwick, Oh. J.

It isgeneral practice for a referee to make an additional allowance, by a provision in the conclusion of law in an equity case. The action involved the plaintiff’s right to shares, and to a certificate as evidence of his ownership of them. Their value was shown by the testimony in the case when it appeared that the defendant agreed to transfer the shares in consideration of receiving property from plaintiff agreed by the parties to be of the nominal value of the shares to be transferred.

It was within the discretion of the court to refuse to stay the proceedings without security from defendants.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Freedman, J., concurs.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 65 (Thursday, April 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6284]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and 
Arkansas, and the Territory of Puerto Rico)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. ET.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227, or 
954-423-7979.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. ET via a telephone conference call. 
If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please 
call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP 
Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. 
Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate 
in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie 
Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or 
post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 29, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E7-6284 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
2

Table 1. Summary of data classifications of recently submitted studies for nicosulfuron. 

Guideline Study Citation MRID Study 

Classification 

Test 

Substance 

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism:

Sarff, P. 2004. Aerobic aquatic metabolism of 14Cnicosulfuron (DPX-V9360) in two water/sediment 

systems. Unpublished study performed by ABC 

Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, Missouri, sponsored and 

submitted by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 

Wilmington, Delaware (pp. 1, 3). ABC Study No.: 

47548. DuPont Study No.: DuPont-10930 (p. 6). 

Experiment started September 27, 2002, and 

terminated April 28, 2004 (p. 6). Final report issued 

August 16, 2004. 

48354304 Supplemental Nicosulfuron 

TGAI 

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism:

Allan, J. 2012. Anaerobic aquatic metabolism of 14Cnicosulfuron (DPX-V9360) in two water/sediment 

systems. Unpublished study performed by ABC 

Laboratories, Inc., Columbia, Missouri, sponsored and 

submitted by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 

Wilmington, Delaware. ABC Study No.: 66637. 

DuPont Study No.: DuPont-31933. Experiment started 

September 15, 2011, and terminated March 21, 2012 

(p. 6). Final report issued March 23, 2012. 

48790905 Supplemental Nicosulfuron 

TGAI
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY DAVE GREEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District 

Judge. (1:10-cr-00968-MBS-7)

Submitted: February 26, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Dave Green, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, 

Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Dave Green appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. Green, No. 1:10-cr-00968-MBS-7 (D.S.C. dated July 9, 

2015 & entered July 13, 2015). 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.

AFFIRMED
Home | Member Login | Events Calendar | Help

Search AGA

Home > Knowledge Center > Energy Industry Analyses & Statistics > Energy Studies > Energy Efficiency, Environment and Climate Change Print This | Email to a Friend 

### About AGA Member Center Events Pubs/Software Our Issues Newsroom Knowledge Center


# Natural Gas – Marginal Cost Analysis

When calculating savings in energy cost from using natural gas appliances and considering conservation and efficiency efforts, some analysts simply multiply the average cost per unit of energy times the energy savings. This method of determination is inappropriate because only a part of the natural gas energy cost should be considered in this calculation. The typical commercial and residential rate is comprised of two components, the fixed (or customer) charge and the costs that vary by consumption. An example of a fixed charges
are employee salaries, while the commodity cost (or purchased gas cost) is a variable, or marginal cost. The fixed costs are recovered in a bill regardless of the amount of gas consumed, as this fee represents a “readiness to serve” obligation of the utility. So only the marginal costs should be considered when calculating the impact of conservation efforts, which tend to happen, of course, at the margin of user consumption. The following documents provide the methodology, rationale and results of the analysis the American Gas Association performs to calculate natural gas marginal costs. Financial and Operational Information Series – Volume 2014-06, June 2014 AGA Bill Comparison Report Form Contact: Bruce McDowell, Managing Director – Policy Analysis | 202-824-7131 | bmcdowell@aga.org

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions ©2014 American Gas Association 400 North Capitol Street, NW | Washington, DC 20001
90

80

90

100

100

80

80

80

100

100

80

100

100

90

100 100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

281

P R O D U C E

S 1 5 T H S T

S T A T E S P U R 11 5

281

P R O D U C E

S 1 5 T H S T

S T A T E S P U R 11 5

Rio Grande

Rio Grande

Lake Texano

HIDALGO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

Hidalgo

Gas Field

Hidalgo

Gas Field

Reynosa

Banco

Number 98

Coyote

Banco

Number 85

Reynosa

Banco

Number 98

Rincon

Bend

Pate

Bend

McAllenHidalgo-Reynosa

Toll Bridge

La Joya Mission

Hidalgo

Pharr

Las

Milpas

FEET

FEET

1 030 000 FEET

98°15'

26°

07'

98° 30"

00'

30"

30" 20' 30"

00'

98°

98°

26°

17' 15'

26°

22'

30"

30"

17'

26°

07'

22' 20'

30" 2'

5'

2' 30"

5'

16 570 000

1 060 000 FEET

16 530 000

E

28

5

000m

5

28

28

5

28

28

28

28

5

28

5

28

28

000m

28

5

28

5 5

000m

5 5 000m

28

28

5 5 5

28

5

28

5 5

28

28

28

28

28

5

5

28

28

28

28

5

5

28

5

28

5

72

65 72 74

77

84

66 67

84

63

82

88

86

83

83

68

65 69 74

88

68

89

79

71

63

86

73

79

87

76

64

66

77

80

82

N

80

78

76

N

70

87

81

81

73

69 70

89

67

E

78

85

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

TX 2698-121

HIDALGO, TX-TAM

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

HIDALGO QUADRANGLE

TEXAS-TAMAULIPAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14R

Imagery.................................................NAIP, January 2009

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2008

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 1995

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983

(south zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 18 ́

5 MILS

5° 5 ́

90 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14R

NP

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET