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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7509

MARK A. GRETHEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00052-RBS)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Grethen, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Certiorari dismissed, February 23, 2009
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. Grethen seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). 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) (2000). 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 Grethen has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for

injunctive relief, deny his motion for substitution of parties,

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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Ernest BINETTI, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-4456.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 27, 1977.

*1142Jackson B. Battle, Tallahassee, Fla. (Court appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Robert L. Andrews, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

*

 Senior District Judge of the Southern District of Florida sitting by designation.

PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, GOD-BOLD, Circuit Judge, and MEHRTENS,* District Judge.

MEHRTENS, District Judge.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, knowingly and intentionally possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, and knowingly and intentionally distributing cocaine. On appeal, we affirmed his conviction of the conspiracy count. Under the concurrenfjsentence doctrine we did not reach the issues raised as to the other counts. *United States v. Binetti,*547 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1977).

In the briefs and at oral argument only casual mention was made of the fact that the sale on May 24th, the day on which Binetti first took an active role, although supposedly to be of cocaine, the substance was in fact a harmless, non-controlled substance used to cut cocaine, called Lidoeaine, which King was passing off to the agents as cocaine. No cocaine was possessed or distributed by anyone on that date.

The point having been raised on Binetti’s petition for rehearing, we have carefully re-examined the record. Although before May ,24th the defendant apparently had knowledge that his associates were selling cocaine, that knowledge without more is not enough to sustain his conviction of conspiracy. When he actually became more than a knowing bystander, it was Lidoeaine and not cocaine which the agents received from King, thinking that it was cocaine.

We have also examined the evidence concerning the substantive offenses which under the concurrent sentence doctrine we did not reach in the original opinion. The evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain his conviction of conspiracy or of any of the substantive counts.

The petition for rehearing is granted and the defendant’s conviction on all counts is reversed and the case remanded for dismissal.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 821 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 821

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for burial 
    in national cemeteries to persons who have 20 years of service 
  creditable for retired pay as members of a reserve component of the 
                             Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

  Mr. Bonilla (for himself and Mr. Stenholm) introduced the following 
     bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for burial 
    in national cemeteries to persons who have 20 years of service 
  creditable for retired pay as members of a reserve component of the 
                             Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 2402 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
            (2) by adding after paragraph (5) the following new 
        paragraph:
    ``(6) Any person who at the time of death was entitled to retired 
pay under chapter 67 of title 10 or would have been entitled to retired 
pay under that chapter but for the fact that the person was under 60 
years of age.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 2301(e) of such title is 
amended by striking out ``section 2402(6)'' and inserting in lieu 
thereof ``section 2402(7)''.
    (2) Section 2306(a)(2) of such title is amended by striking out 
``(6)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(7)''.

                                 <all>
```
#### The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Doris Cook FATTORUSSO, Respondent.

No. 38196.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 14, 1971.

Certiorari dismissed.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Toggle navigationUtility (Top) navigationAbout Us ForwardBackAbout UsMission & VisionLeadershipOur OrganizationOur FacilitiesRegionsLaws & Regulations ForwardBackLaws & RegulationsLaws, Agreements & TreatiesHunting RegulationsLibrary ForwardBackLibraryCategoriesCollectionsHomeServices ForwardBackServicesDuck Stamps ForwardBackDuck StampsBuy a Duck Stamp or E-StampBuy a Junior Duck StampFish StockingImporting & ExportingConsultation & Technical Assistance ForwardBackConsultation & Technical AssistanceESA Section 7 ConsultationHabitat Conservation Planning (HCPs)Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCA & CCAA)Safe Harbour Agreements (SHA)Conservation BankingCoastal Barrier Resources Act Project ConsultationCoastal Barrier Resources System Property DocumentationFinancial AssistanceSpecies ManagementInvestigational New Animal Drugs (INADS)PermitsSearch All ServicesDuck Stamps One of the easiest ways that anyone can support bird habitat conservation is by buying duck stamps.Species ForwardBackSpeciesExplore Taxonomic TreeFind a SpeciesInterest story Bats: “The Coolest Mammals on Earth”Visit Us ForwardBackVisit UsEventsRecreation PassesOutdoor RecreationWhere to HuntWhere to FishOur LocationsScenic Drives Tour routes of great scenic drives on National Wildlife Refuges.Get Involved ForwardBackGet InvolvedCareers and InternshipsVolunteeringFriends PartnershipsLearning OpportunitiesEducation ProgramsEventsPartnerships ForwardBackPartnershipsPartnership CategoriesPartner ListVolunteer Search for volunteer opportunities around the countryNewsroom ForwardBackNewsroomPress ReleasesCongressional TestimonyMedia ContactsWild Things News about wonderful wild things and placesInitiatives ForwardBackInitiativesCombating Wildlife TraffickingDirector's PrioritiesClimate ChangeHuntingFishingInvasive SpeciesPollinatorsProtecting WildlifeClimate Action FWS is taking steps to mitigate climate impactsI want to ForwardBackI Want ToReport Wildlife CrimeDo Business with FWSVolunteerFind a Job or InternshipVisit a RefugeBuy a Duck StampApply for a PermitFind FundingFind TrainingWild work Search employment opportunities with USFWSSearchSearchSearchEnter the terms you wish to search for. ×  Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LogoWorking with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.Footer Menu - EmploymentCareers & InternshipsContractingFooter Menu - Site LinksLeadershipFrequently Asked QuestionsContact FWSFooter Menu - LegalAccessibilityFreedom of Information ActNoticesPrivacy PolicyDisclaimersInformation QualityVulnerability Disclosure PolicyFooter Menu - External LinksDOIUSA.GOV




You are exiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website You are being directed to We do not guarantee that the websites we link to comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act. Links also do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I Understand. Take me there. Cancel
Statement of the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

Department of the Environment 

for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed New Regulation 

.09-1 Control of VOC Emissions from Industrial Solvent Cleaning Operations Other Than 

Cold and Vapor Degreasing under 

COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes 

held on January 21, 2010 Baltimore, MD 

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with 

the Regulation Development Division of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, 

Department of the Environment. 

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102 

and Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Article, Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also 

being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State 

Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101. 

Notice of this hearing appeared in the: 

Maryland Register on December 18, 2009; 

MDE's website on December 17, 2009 to January 21, 2010; 

Baltimore Sun on December 18, 2009; 

Saint Mary's Enterprise on December 18, 2009; 

Cumberland Times-News on December 18, 2009; 

Frederick News-Post on December 18, 2009; 

Salisbury Daily Times on December 18, 2009; and the 

Washington Post on December 17, 2009. 

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record. 

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents were submitted for review to 

the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were 

also made available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Management Administration 

offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air 

quality control offices. 

 The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on 

proposed new Regulation .09-1 under COMAR 26.11.19.

Summary 

COMAR 26.11.19.09-1 sets the following VOC standard and requirements for mixing 

vessels (tanks), spray booths, and parts cleaners (excluding cold or vapor degreasing covered 

under COMAR 26.11.19.09), where VOC emissions from cleaning operations at a premises are 

15 pounds or more per day (6.8 kg/day): 

1 
2 

1. A person subject to the regulation may not use any VOC industrial solvent cleaning material 

that exceeds the vapor pressure 8 mm Hg at 20 deg. C (~ 0.152 psia) or 50 gram per liter VOC 

limit; and 

2. Exemptions of industrial categories that have specific requirements for cleaning solvents are 

also included in the regulation. 

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

This regulation will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP. 

Consideration of Comments 

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt the 

proposed new regulation.
#### HOME OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF BREVARD COUNTY, Florida f/u/b/o Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-653.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-50790

DWAINE GANYO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SEGUIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, JAMES LEHM AN, MILTON WITT, TIMOTHY FO X, NANCY EWALD, BILL FENNELL, RAY SIMICEK, AND LIONEL (SKIP) MENO, TEXAS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas

(SA-93-CV-203)
July 18, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dwaine Ganyo appeals from the district court’s granting of

summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees. Ganyo contends

that the district court erred by rendering judgment that Ganyo’s

rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments had not been

violated; he was not termi nated in retaliation for filing his

complaint with the TEA; he lacked standing to sue under theRehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and committed other alleged

errors.

We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order

granting summary judgment, the memorandum and recommendation of the

magistrate judge, and Ganyo’s arguments on appeal. We find no

reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal C 93/20 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 93 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6320 March 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 93

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6320 March 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 93/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 93/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Oscar RODRIGUEZ and Ayda Rodriguez, his wife, Appellants, v. Kenneth I. SILVERSTEIN, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 77-1751.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 20, 1978.

Grover, Ciment, Weinstein & Stauber, Miami Beach, Greene & Cooper and Sharon Wolfe, Miami, for appellants.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and George W. Chesrow, Miami, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL, J., and PARKER, J. GWYNN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

*926PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: *Harrell v. Durrance,*9 Fla. 490 (1861); *W. T. Hadlow Company v. Sargent,*61 Fla. 263, 54 So. 1003 (1911); *Orange Julius Realty Corporation*v. *Sunshine Toy Center, Inc.,*251 So.2d 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); *Fears*v. *Lunsford,*314 So.2d 578 (Fla.1975); *Gordon v. Goodrich,*347 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420.
fa ·~odd 110{/VIC/{l· { lf5 5-e-fv/U-- fv h~rru.t 

Q!c{x -/J: JO!S- ;I.. -4- () sf ,;HJ/3- ocf36
# C_2017049EN.01000201.xml

| 16.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 February 2017

(2017/C 49/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0555 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,85 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4345 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84998 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4508 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0652 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8523 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,42 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3015 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5143 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,8662 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3761 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3809 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,1923 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4705 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5012 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 205,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,7701 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2521 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4568 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 060,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6959 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,719 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 60,9795 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,974 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2505 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,4777 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,6005 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0555

JPY

Japanese yen

120,85

DKK

Danish krone

7,4345

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84998

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4508

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0652

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8523

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,42

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3015

RON

Romanian leu

4,5143

TRY

Turkish lira

3,8662

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3761

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3809

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,1923

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4705

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5012

KRW

South Korean won

1 205,35

ZAR

South African rand

13,7701

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2521

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4568

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 060,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6959

PHP

Philippine peso

52,719

RUB

Russian rouble

60,9795

THB

Thai baht

36,974

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2505

MXN

Mexican peso

21,4777

INR

Indian rupee

70,6005

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1919

In Re: GEORGE PAUL LAROQUE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cv-00564-NCT; 1:08-mc-00031-TDS)

Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Paul Laroque, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George Paul Laroque petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his appeal from the bankruptcy court. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket sheet reveals that the district court denied Laroque’s motions for injunctive relief on December 22, 2008, and consolidated the four appeals Laroque has filed in order to rule on his remaining outstanding motions on December 24, 2008. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Laroque’s case, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.

PETITION DENIED
No. 64.

#### Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland *v.*The City of Cleburne et al.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of App^ils for the Fifth Circuit.

Argued October 19, 1925.

Decided October 26, 1925.

*Mr. Washington Bowie, Jr.,*with whom *Mr. Albert B. Hall*was on the brief, for appellant.

*Messrs. Alex W. Spence*and *E. B. Stroud, Jr.,*with whom *Mr. ,E. B. Perkins*was on the brief, for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

Affirmed with costs upon the authority of *Texas & Pacific Ry Co.*v. *Railroad Commission of Louisiana,*232 U. S. 338, 339; *Washington Securities Co.*v. *United States,*234 U. S, 76, 78; *Baker*v. *Scholfield,*243 U. S. 114, 118; *Piedmont & G. C. Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co.,*254 U. S. 1, 13.
H. Res. 10

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 5, 1993.

Resolved, That at 10:30 ante meridiem on Wednesday,

January 20, 1993, the House shall proceed to the West

Front of the Capitol for the purpose of attending the inaugural ceremonies of the President and Vice President of the

United States.

Attest:

Clerk.