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**UNPUBLISHED**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

**No. 16**  **- 6157** 

JOSEPH L. HAZEL , a/k/a Joseph Hazel , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. JOHN PATE, Warden, Respondent

- Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv - 04435

- TMC )

Submitted : June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
. Joseph L. Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, S outh Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph L. Hazel seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (20 12 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (20 12 ) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 )
. 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 deb atable 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 i s debatable, and that the petition 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 Hazel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
H azel’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss his appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10349 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEVIN LA-DON MCKENZIE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:00-CR-98-ALL

-------------------- February 20, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kevin La-Don McKenzie appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to manufacture cocaine base. McKenzie argues that the district court erred by denying him a three-level downward adjustment in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that he is entitled to the offense level reduction. See United States v. Flucas , 99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996). “The entry of a guiltyNo. 01-10349 -2- plea prior to the commencement of trial is significant evidence of acceptance of responsibility but does not entitle the defendant to a reduction as a matter of right.” United States v. Rickett , 89 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1996); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). In determining whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for his crime, the district court should consider whether the defendant has voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct or associations. See Flucas , 99 F.3d at 180; U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(b)). A very deferential standard of review is applied to a district court's refusal to credit a defendant's acceptance of responsibility. See Rickett , 89 F.3d at 227. Although McKenzie timely admitted his guilt, the district court did not err in determining that McKenzie was not entitled to the downward adjustment because McKenzie failed to withdraw from criminal conduct while he was being detained pending sentencing. McKenzie’s pre-sentence report revealed that during a shakedown of McKenzie’s cell, marijuana was found concealed in a hair care container filled with lotion. In view of the evidence adduced at the sentencing hearing, the district court’s determination that McKenzie was in possession of the marijuana was not erroneous. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
(Reap. Dec. 9043)

#### Rockbar Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 925367, etc.

(Decided January 3, 1958)

*Fred Bennett; Jordan & Klingaman,*associate counsel; for the plaintiff.

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

Lawrence, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached to and made part of this decision, are limited to the question of the proper dutiable value of certain record changers identified on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by said appeals with the letter *“A”*or “B” and initials “RDE” of Examiner Russell D. Evans.

The parties to this cause of action have stipulated and agreed that neither such nor similar merchandise is freely offered for sale in the country of exportation either for home consumption or for export to the United States and that neither such nor similar merchandise is freely offered for sale in the United States. It was further stipulated and agreed that the cost of production of the contested items in the country of exportation is as follows:

> Items on the invoices marked *“A”*and checked RDE by Examiner Russell D. Evans $9.65 each net packed.

> Items on the invoices marked “B” and checked RDE by Examiner Russell D. Evans $8.82 each net packed.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1'402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the record changers in issue and that said value is as follows:

> *643Items on the invoices marked “A” and checked RDE by Examiner Russell D. Evans $9.65 each net packed.

> Items on the invoices marked “B” and checked RDE by Examiner Russell D. Evans $8.82 each net packed.

Insofar as the appeals relate to merchandise other than the items marked and initialed as aforesaid, they are dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-51225

Summary Calendar

 

MARY L. LUCAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-00-CV-724-SC

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

September 10, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mary L. Lucas appeals the district court’s judgment

affirming the denial of her application for disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income. Lucas contends that

the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

regarding her disability status was not supported by substantial

evidence. Specifically, she asserts that the ALJ erred in

disregarding the opinion of Dr. D. M. Hamilton, failing to

determine the treatment relationship between Lucas and Dr. Willis
No. 01-51225

-2-

Thorstad, failing to consider the combined effect of all of her

impairments, and finding that she could perform her past relevant

work as a CD packer. Because Lucas failed to present this latter

issue in district court, review is for plain error. See Kinash

v. Callahan, 129 F.3d 736, 739 n.10 (5th Cir. 1997). Any error

must be “‘plain’ and ‘affect substantial rights.’” Id. Lucas

does not allege, and the record does not indicate, that this

court’s failure to consider the instant issue will affect her

substantial rights. Therefore, she has not shown plain error.

The ALJ explicitly considered the combined effect of all of

Lucas’s impairments. Furthermore, although the Appeals Council

subsequently included Dr. Thorstad’s medical opinion into the

administrative record, his opinion was not part of the record at

the time of the ALJ’s decision. Accordingly, the ALJ had no

basis for determining the treatment relationship between Lucas

and Dr. Thorstad. Based on our review of the record, the ALJ’s

decisions disregarding Dr. Hamilton’s opinion and denying

benefits to Lucas were supported by substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2013046EN.01003305.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2012 — Ciora v Commission

(Case F-11/12)

2013/C 46/71

Language of the case: Romanian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

VIDEO INFORMATION

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Managing the Airfield

By  Tech. Sgt. Darnell T. Cannady380th AEW/PA

                AL DHAFRA AIR BASE, United Arab Emirates  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Airfield ManagementAl Dhafra Air Base380th Air Expeditionary WingConstructionequipmentmaintenanceaircraft maintenance
No. 96-2.

#### McDermott, Inc. *v.*Capital Welding *&*Fabrication, Inc., et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of Forest Oil Corp. for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Darrian FRANKLIN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 98-KH-1021.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Franklin, Darrian;—Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “C”, No. 384-064; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 98KW-0412.

Writ granted. The district court is ordered to supply relator with a copy of his guilty plea colloquy transcript. *State ex rel. Simmons v. State,*93-0275 (La.12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted),Edward A. Keible, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Endwave Corporation (the “Company”), and Brett W.Wallace, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his orher knowledge:     **1. **The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, towhich this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the ***“Quarterly Report”***) fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and     **2. **The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     **In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 7th day ofAugust, 2006.     /s/Edward A. Keible, Jr. /s/Brett W. Wallace Edward A. Keible, Jr.   BrettW. WallaceChief Executive Officer Chief Financial OfficerThis certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofEndwave Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-50254 and 333-60583) of our report dated May 24, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Interplay Entertainment Corporation as of December 31, 2010 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2010, which appear in this December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Farber Hass Hurley LLP
 
 Granada Hills, California
 May 24, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1506 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1506

 To prevent the Secretary of the Treasury from expanding United States 
 bank reporting requirements with respect to interest on deposits paid 
                         to nonresident aliens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2011

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prevent the Secretary of the Treasury from expanding United States 
 bank reporting requirements with respect to interest on deposits paid 
                         to nonresident aliens.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TREASURY REGULATIONS WITH RESPECT TO 
              INFORMATION REPORTING ON CERTAIN INTEREST PAID TO 
              NONRESIDENT ALIENS.

    Except to the extent provided in Treasury Regulations as in effect 
on February 21, 2011, the Secretary of the Treasury shall not require 
(by regulation or otherwise) that an information return be made by a 
payor of interest in the case of interest--
            (1) which is described in section 871(i)(2)(A) of the 
        Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and
            (2) which is paid--
                    (A) to a nonresident alien, and
                    (B) on a deposit maintained at an office within the 
                United States.
                                 <all>
```
Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 20 1 5

- 7 777 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 20 1 5

- CE

- 0 3 7

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM



### N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

lis t latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o f the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree w ith because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:



### Page 1 of 3If NO

, we don’t agree because

For additional issues, do uble

- click here



### Page 2 of 3

### S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch M anager Date



### Page 3 of 3
(Reap. Dec. 9660)

#### Perfect Parts, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 835071.

(Decided April 12, 1960)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

*George Ooohran Doulj,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

Certain brass rivets imported from Holland are the subject merchandise of this appeal for a reappraisement.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed that, at the time of exportation thereof, such and similar rivets were being freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Holland, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of. trade, at the appraised unit prices, less 45 per •centum, less 15 per centum, and then less 3 per centum, net packed, and that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise.

Upon the record before the court, I find and hold that foreign value,, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(c)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the merchandise in issue, and that said value is the appraised unit prices, less 45 per centum, less 15 per centum, and then less 3 per centum, net packed. As to any other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will be issued accordingly.
#### Lisa Smith Munn GUILLOT v. Marion Patrick MUNN, Jr.

No. 99-C-0273.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

JjPER CURIAM. *

Granted; judgment vacated and case remanded to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. La. Const, art. V, § 8(B) provides that a “majority of the judges sitting in a case must concur to render judgment.” The court of appeal erred as a matter of law in concluding that because the “members of [the] five judge panel cannot agree on a disposition of this ease[, t]he effect ... is that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.” Under its constitutional authority to review cases, the court of appeal must consider and decide the case. The adjudicative function of the reviewing court considering an appeal of right is not fulfilled when the court calls it a tie and decides not to decide.

Accordingly, the court of appeal’s judgment is vacated in full and this case is remanded to the court of appeal. It is ordered that the panel of that court render judgment, by majority vote, on all issues in the case, whether by single vote, by separate vote on each issue, or by a per curiam of the court with members expressing their concurrence or dissent separately. *See, e.g., Derbofen v. T.L. James & Co.,*355 2So.2d 963 (La.App. 4 Cir.1977), *writ denied,*357 So.2d 1156, 1168 (La.), *cert. denied,*439 U.S. 911, 99 S.Ct. 280, 58 L.Ed.2d 257 (1978), in which the five-judge panel expressed its consensus decision in a per curiam opinion, with each individual judge expressing his view in partial dissenting and concurring opinions; *see also Kramer v. Continental Cas. Co.,*92-1131 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/22/94), 641 So.2d 557, *writ not considered,*94-2576 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 399, *writ denied,*94-2473, 94-2474, 94-2475 (La.12/19/94), 648 So.2d 402, 403, in which the five-judge panel expressed its consensus decision in an opinion, with one judge concurring, one judge concurring in the result, and two judges dissenting. It is further ordered that the court of appeal hear the case with preference and priority, and render its judgment expeditiously.

*

 Kimball, J., not on panel. *See*Rule IV, Part 2, § 3.