alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6899

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RODERICK EMMANUEL STEADMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CR-00-248-A; CA-01-1573-A) Submitted: February 20, 2004 Decided: March 11, 2004 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roderick Emmanuel Steadman, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Although we initially dismissed this appeal on the ground that Steadman failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we granted Steadman’s rehearing petition and have considered the issues raised in his informal brief. We now dismiss the case on the ground that Steadman has failed to meet the standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-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 Steadman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral- 3 - 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
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 4, 2011       | By:    | /s/ RONALD L. SMITH                                                           |   |
|                                                                                                 |   | Ronald L. Smith                                                                    |   |
|                                                                                                 |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                         |   |
|                                                                                                 |   | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |   |
510000m.£

BATHYMETRIC MAP

A

i;
“

/

\

i

All

7870000m.N)

/

J /LS

Wy

ISLAN,

|

BEAUFORT SEA

FLAXMAN ISLAND

7870000m.,

ed

~

FLAXMAN

sjoo0om, |

Base map information including bathymetry was compiled by the National
Ocean Service (NOS). Bathymetry was compiled from NOS hydrographic
surveys supplemented by hydrographic information from other sources (see
index). NOS hydrographic survey data complies with International Hydro-
graphic Organization (IHO) Publication 44 accuracy standards or those
used at the date of the surveys. This is a reproduction of a facsimile of the
bathymetric manuscript and does not necessarily represent the final publi-
cation. This information is not intended for navigational purposes.
Bathymetric Contour Intervals: 10 meters to 200 meter depth, supplemented
by 2 meter intervals, thence 50 meters to maximum depth.

Datum: Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).

Universal Transverse Mercator Grid. Zone 6; 10,000 meter ticks (--) are
shown inside the neatline.

Protraction Diagram data shown in a subdued (screened) black was com-
piled by the Minerals Management Service (MMS]

THIS MAP IS.NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT for Federal leasing putposes; for
such purposes use the MMS Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction
Diagrams . .
Heavy line{s) indicate limits of these protraction

diagrams.
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INFORMATION

f suaveY
sunvey survey survey Line SPACING

| numer DATE SALE (war. MILES)

| H-7658 1948 1:20,000 02-.70
Hess tas 20,000 Oona

| Hcpose 1349-50 20.000 oo 38

|} p75 1313.80, 1:20.000 02-85

| crass 1399.50, 20.000 ace
He82 1350 120.000 brit
Hass 1350 120,000 O25
H7888 1380 40,000 08-35

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC. AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

1986

Produced at Washington, D.C.
for

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION
Scale 1:250,000
10

Oo 5 15 ___20 Statute Miles
5 ° 5 10 15 20 25 30 Kilometers
i) 5 10 15 Nautical Miles
1

NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY INDEX

Supplementary Date

Photographic copies of the abova and prior surveys
may be obtained, at the cost of reproduction, by
addressing the Ditector(N/CG243), National Ocean
Service, National Qceanic and Atmospheric Admini:
stration, Rockville, Maryland 20852:

4

€ZYUN GNVIS! YaLYva

@e@ “@8&

|
i

ue FLAXMAN ISLAND
NOS NR 6-4 (OCS)

INDEX TO
150° ADJOINING SHEETS 141°
728 72°
In The Matter Of: 

### SERVED: MARCH 19, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2013-0047 FACILITY SOLUTIONS, INC. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2012NE70012S Respondent
ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING OnFebruary 26, 2014, an Order Cancelling the Hearing and Setting a Third Status Conference was filed. This Order cancelled the March 2014 litigation deadlines, cancelled the Hearing set for April S-9, 2014, and set a Third Status Conference for AprilS, 2014. OnMarch 1S, 2014, the Respondent filed Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing stating thatthe parties have resolved the controversy and requesting·thatthe matter be dismissed. After having reviewedthe case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Third Status Conference set for AprilS, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Easterntime is cancelled. 2. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawn its Request for Hearing, and this proceeding is dismissed withprejudice.

Attachment: Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1



### Mr. Brian 

### K. Khan Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7H Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7652 FAX: 847-294-7498

.Mr. Roy J. Transit Respondent's Counsel P.O. Box 1578 Royal Oak, MI 48068-1578 TEL: 586-491-6822 Judge J.E. Sullivan US. AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation ONE COPY



### 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0047 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
(Reap. Dec. 9792)

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States

Entry. No. 5947, etc.

(Decided October 3, 1960)

*Lane, Young & Foca*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Loub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals, covering certain bamboo blinds, bamboo porch shades, and accompanying sets of hardware accessories, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the above appeals for reappraisement consists of bamboo blinds, bamboo porch shades, and sets of hardware accessories imported from Japan; and that each bamboo blind and bamboo porch shade, as invoiced, is accompanied by one set of hardware accessories.

> *497That on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise hereinbefore described, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, at the appraised unit values, packed; that said unit values include the cost of the sets of hardware accessories, which cost is 3 cents (Ü.S. Oy) per set of hardware accessories; and that there was no higher foreign value.

> That the above appeals for reappraisement are limited to the merchandise hereinbefore described and are abandoned as to all other' merchandise; and that said appeals may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and bold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values for the items covered by the appeals herein were the appraised unit values, packed, the said unit values including therein the cost of the sets of hardware accessories, which cost is 3 cents (United States currency) per set of hardware accessories.

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that, extent, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 99




                        UNISOURCE ENERGY CORPORATION


                        TUCSON ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY

                            _____________________


                      STATEMENTS OF CORPORATE OFFICERS
         (Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

                            _____________________

     Each of the undersigned, James S. Pignatelli, Chairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer of UniSource Energy Corporation and
Tucson Electric Power Company (each a "Company"), and Kevin P. Larson, Vice
President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of each Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
each Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of such Company.


May 15, 2003

                                 /s/  James S. Pignatelli
                                 --------------------------------
                                      James S. Pignatelli
                                  Chairman of the Board, President
                                     and Chief Executive Officer
                                   UniSource Energy Corporation
                                   Tucson Electric Power Company


                                 /s/  Kevin P. Larson
                                 --------------------------------
                                      Kevin P. Larson
                                  Vice President, Treasurer and
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                  UniSource Energy Corporation
                                  Tucson Electric Power Company



     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.'S STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS FOR 
THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND CONDENSED STATEMENT 
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<CASH>                                        217
<SECURITIES>                                  405
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                   351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,601
<PP&E>                                     13,927
<DEPRECIATION>                              5,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             12,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,962
<BONDS>                                     3,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,113
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               12,520
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           12,352
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              11,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               936
<INCOME-TAX>                                  356
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           580
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (66)
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0
                                                

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9363)

#### James E. Fox & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 794540; 794684.

(Decided March 25, 1959)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Goehram, Boub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeals for a re-appraisement were called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official records discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable R. T. saber, President 

Texas Boaxd of Dental Examinrre 

1014 #orwood Building 

AtWtti, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

above stated quathi8 depatanent. 

oux opiaion ‘we puQt* 

f be am&red that we 

theroin presental. 

Bleat or the &fate 

Dr. W. A. $uckuer, 

Boat& or Doatal 

hi* ecaploy~ 

d eonduotm 

lag Couaty Health UnlOs 

the d.urtirta in that 

08 are one-half adaaatlCma1 

Mb, Chapter 9, Title 91 of the 

1 Statutea, Acts 1919 a8 aaeaded by 

;?cta 1996.4&h Legislature; and, Arblela 949, 

Uhapter 7, ~Titlo 18 of the Penal Code of 19ILb, 

Acts 1919 as amendid by .iots 1995 44th Legiulatura require that the praotitionrre in the State 

or ~eras #hall reoord their liseaea in the Oirice or the Q0uM.l Clark or eaoh and everp oakty in whioh the$ graotfoe, and requbws the 
Eonorable R. T. Webar, Pago 2 

pciyaeat 0r rlrty (sag) oenbs ror suoh recordatloa. 

VU11 it be aeoarrsuy tar Dr. Buokmr aa 

aa employee 0r the Stat0 0r Texa8 to rimt regiaer and reoord him 1160~0 before ha may eonduot the arralr8 laoidmnt to hlr employmeat? 

Who aunt pay the a4 if the above is axewered in the arrlraatfre?* 

Further, it lb our undor6tanding that the aclnitw 

rendered by thlo olini& to indigaat permnm, seleotitoly 

ohoaen, are free; that they are eonduoted pursuant to the 

duty Imposed upon the State Eealth Dopiutnmnt, by &%icle 

Ul4a; viz., 

*TO better proteot and promto the health 

0r the people 0r a-8 * * **; 

and that the polioy b.lUd, an4 the exaum for the existennoo 

0r this trarollng ollaio ia to pronot a general publlo OMeoioarne08 or nantax hygiuie. 

wBvu~y peraea to whoa a lioumo ia ismed 

by the State Board of Dental Rxamlnu8 &all, 

belore beginning the praetiao ef doatiotry at 

say place la this Stat., prerenti Iike m to 

the County Clerk of the ootm8y In Web he 

realde8 aad offer8 to praatl8e. aad tot& 

Ooanty Clerk of eaoh'knd every othu oounty 

in whioh he slay praetloe or offer to praotisr; 

addCounty Clerk &all rooard aaid lioeanee &a 

a book provided for the purpou, and reamhe 

rirty (5og) oontrr therefar. * * +* 

Artlola ‘149, Vuaoa*a &motat@ Penal Qodr, la oouahbd 

in the ldentltihl U&w*; thua r&@riag its quotation anmaeeaimry hem. 

A a010 456x6 revidea rrbs @hall be aoaalbsred aa 

praotfuiag iientistry withii the meaning of the rariotm atatutory provision8 rigalating that proi688i0n. s8otion S tar
# C_2016027EN.01000701.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Tele2 (Netherlands) BV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM), Other party: European Directory Assistance NV

(Case C-536/15)

(2016/C 027/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Tele2 (Netherlands) BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV

Appellants:

Respondent: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

Respondent:

Other party: European Directory Assistance NV

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Must Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that requests should be understood to include a request from a company established in another Member State, which requests information for the purposes of the provision of publicly available telephone directory enquiry services and directories which are provided in that Member State and/or in other Member States? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Must Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that requests should be understood to include a request from a company established in another Member State, which requests information for the purposes of the provision of publicly available telephone directory enquiry services and directories which are provided in that Member State and/or in other Member States?

1

| 2) | If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: may a provider who makes telephone numbers available, and who is obliged under national legislation to request a subscriber’s consent prior to inclusion in standard telephone directories and standard directory enquiry services, differentiate in the request for consent on the basis of the non-discrimination principle according to the Member State in which the company requesting the information as referred to in Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC provides the telephone directory and directory enquiry service? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative: may a provider who makes telephone numbers available, and who is obliged under national legislation to request a subscriber’s consent prior to inclusion in standard telephone directories and standard directory enquiry services, differentiate in the request for consent on the basis of the non-discrimination principle according to the Member State in which the company requesting the information as referred to in Article 25(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC provides the telephone directory and directory enquiry service?

---

(1)  Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51).

1

---
No. 47564.

#### Protest 8083-K of Wm. Filene’s Sons Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the mufflers in question are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 45938 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9798)

#### Plywood & Door Manufacturers Corporation et al. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 20565, etc.

*502(Decided October 6, 1960)

*James Wilson Yount;*for tbe plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for tbe parties have submitted the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto, upon a stipulation, on the basis of which I find that, except for the items of merchandise set forth in schedule “B,” also attached hereto, the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise involved in the said appeals for reappraisement is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and that such value, in each instance, is the invoice unit value, less ocean freight and insurance, with no allowance for discounts appearing on the invoices.

Appeal for reappraisement No. R58/23072, having been abandoned as to the merchandise specified in schedule “B,” it is, to that extent, dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.

> Schedule B

> Boston entries, reappraisement Nos. R58/23064, etc.

> Reappraisement No. Collector’s No. Entry No. Date of export

> R58/23072 4666 6748 9-19-57

> Shipper: Ablstrom, Oy. birch plywood as follows:

> BBJ/WG grade, 14” thick, 2414” x 1714", Appraised at invoice nnit value, less ocean freight, insurance, and loading charges.