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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6079

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL WALLACE RICE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cr-00011-REP-2; 3:17-cv00123-REP)

Submitted: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 24, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Wallace Rice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Wallace Rice, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Rice’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, which the 

district court found was an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion. We dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal 

must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or 

order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 16, 2017. The 

notice of appeal was filed on January 18, 2018.

1

 Because Rice failed to file a timely 

notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,2 we dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

 1 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

2 Rice arguably sought reopening in that, in his notice of appeal, Rice averred that 

he had no notice of the district court’s disposition until two days earlier. However, the 

reopening period identified in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B)—which, in this case, was 180 

days from the entry of the district court’s order—had long since expired, and district 

courts are not authorized to extend that period to account for equitable or exceptional 

circumstances. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 213-14. 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 983 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 983

 To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing the Patient 
 Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education 
                      Reconciliation Act of 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 16, 2013

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing the Patient 
 Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education 
                      Reconciliation Act of 2010.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care 
Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) On May 10, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service admitted 
        that it singled out advocacy groups, based on ideology, seeking 
        tax-exempt status.
            (2) This action raises pertinent questions about the 
        agency's ability to implement and oversee the Patient 
        Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the 
        Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public 
        Law 111-152).
            (3) This action could be an indication of future Internal 
        Revenue Service abuses in relation to the Patient Protection 
        and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education 
        Reconciliation Act of 2010, given that it is their 
        responsibility to enforce a key provision, the individual 
        mandate.
            (4) Americans accept the principle that patients, families, 
        and doctors should be making medical decisions, not the Federal 
        Government.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITING ENFORCEMENT OF PPACA AND HCERA.

    The Secretary of the Treasury, or any delegate of the Secretary, 
shall not implement or enforce any provisions of or amendments made by 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) or 
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 
111-152).
                                 <all>
```
MERRILLAVIATION&DEFENSEAMernllTechnolog,csGroupCompanyMerrillAviation&DefensewouldliketomakethefollowingFAAregulatoryexemptionstotheoperationoftheUAScalledtheTorrentN268MTMotorpoweredgliderfixedwingaircraftinthefollowingareas:1.Merrillwillbeapplyingforexemptionfrom14CFRpart61.113therequirementforacommercialprivatepilotlicense.2.Merrillwillbeapplyingforexemptionfrom14CFRpart91.121Altimetersetting.3.Merrillwillbeapplyingforexemptionfrom14CFRpart91.119MinimumSafeAltitudes,Paragraph(c)and(d).4.Merrillwillbeapplyingforexemptionfrom14CFRpart91.151FuelreserverequirementsforVFRconditions.MerrilliscommittedtothesafeuseofUASaircraftandbynomeanslookingtocircumventthecurrantFAAregulation.MerrillbelievesthelisteditemhoweverplaceanundueburdenthatisunnecessaryforthissizeandclassofUAS.TheseexemptionswouldbetheonlychangesmadetotheAirworthinessconsiderationthatwouldbedifferenttotheoriginalapplicationrequestthatwassubmittedandapprovedon12/04/2014andhavesincethenbeendeemednecessaryinmostcasesbytheFAAfor333exemptionapplicants.Therewillbenoeffectontheoperationalsafetycausedbytheseexemptions.MerrillAviation&DefensebelievesthatbyallowingMerrillAviation&DefensetooperatetheTorrentUASwiththeserequestedexemptionitwillallowMA&DtocontinueitsUASdesignandresearchandmanufacturingprocesswithlessrestrictionandwillinturnallowMA&DtobringmorejobstoanotherwisedepressedareaofMichiganduetothereducedAutoIndustryactivityinthelocalarea.TheproposedoperationsarepreviouslydefinedintheFAAapprovedprogramletterdated11/13/2015andtheareaofoperationauthorizedonFAAform7711-1UASCOAforSpecialAirworthinessCertificate.Sincerelyb·\)JamesDPeters:0.\UnmannedAircraProgramDesign7/ZO\.S:jpeters@merrilltg.com(989)791-6676Ext.5019I0:!3SouthWheelerStreet,Sagma\\.Ml48602Ph:Fx:989.9:!1.14881463SouthStateRoad45,Spnng.,illc.INPh:Flt:812.825.4369wv.'".McrriliTG.com
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 688 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 688

  To permanently extend the private mortgage insurance tax deduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 9, 2013

Ms. Stabenow (for herself and Mr. Crapo) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To permanently extend the private mortgage insurance tax deduction.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE INSURANCE 
              PREMIUMS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 163(h)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking clause (iv).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or accrued after December 31, 2013, and to amounts 
properly allocable to periods after such date.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50953 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CANDELARIO GRAJEDA-ZAMORANO, also known as Candelario Zamorano-Grajeda, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-954-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Candelario Grajeda-Zamorano appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Grajeda-Zamorano contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should haveNo. 03-50953 -2- been alleged in his indictment. Grajeda-Zamorano maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Grajeda-Zamorano acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
----

----

I Informácie

Komisia

----

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

10. februára 2005

(2005/C 36/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

----

----

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii

(Prípad COMP/M.3734 — Ericsson/H3G)

(2005/C 36/02)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

----

(1)Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

----

----

STANOVISKO KOMISIE

z 22. decembra 2004

týkajúce sa plánu likvidácie rádioaktívneho odpadu vzniknutého pri vyraďovaní komínov jadrového reaktora vo Windscale pri Sellafield v Cumbrii v Spojenom kráľovstve v súlade s článkom 37 Zmluvy o založení Európskeho spoločenstva pre atómovú energiu (Zmluvy o Euratome)

(2005/C 36/03)

(Len anglické znenie je autentické)

Dňa 16. apríla 2004 dostala Európska Komisia od vlády Spojeného kráľovstva v súlade s článkom 37 Zmluvy o Euroatome všeobecné údaje, ktoré sa vzťahujú k plánu likvidácie rádioaktívneho odpadu, vzniknutého vyradením vetracích komínov jadrového reaktora vo Windscale.

Na základe týchto údajov a dodatočných informácií, ktoré Komisia žiadala 9. júla 2004 a ktoré jej 3. septembra 2004 poskytla vláda Spojeného kráľovstva a na základe porady so skupinou expertov, Komisia vypracovala toto stanovisko:

Na záver Komisia zastáva názor, že implementácia plánu zneškodnenia rádioaktívneho odpadu v akejkoľvek forme, ktorý by mohol vzniknúť v dôsledku odstavenia komínov jadrového reaktora vo Windscale pri Sellafielde v Spojenom kráľovstve, by pri bežnej prevádzke a v prípade nehody, ktorej druh a rozsah sa uvádza vo všeobecných podmienkach, neviedol k rádioaktívnemu znečisteniu, ktoré by malo význam zo zdravotného hľadiska a z hľadiska zamorenia vody, pôdy a vzdušného priestoru ďalšieho členského štátu.

----
Exhibit 23.1:

Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

Hudson Technologies, Inc.

Pearl River, New York

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-17133 and No. 333-38598) on Form S-8 of our report dated March 3, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Hudson Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003 appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

		/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Valhalla New York
March 24, 2004
** **
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification by the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Sorphea Rath, hereby certify
that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Glorywin Entertainment Group Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2017 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Glorywin Entertainment Group Inc.



|Date: June 16, 2022 |  | /s/ Sorphea Rath        | 
|------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 
|                    |  | Sorphea Rath            | 
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer | 



This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by Glorywin
Entertainment Group Inc. for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").
Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Glorywin Entertainment Group Inc. specifically incorporates it by reference.
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 Intelligence AgencyCOMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE IN DEFENSE OF THE NATION

Search
Search

Search
                    - Facilities Operating Status
                    - Employee Resources

-  Home		 
-  About    -  FAQs             
  -  Organization      -  Locations             
    -  Missile and Space Intelligence Center             
    -  Joint Military Attache School             
    -  Joint Military Intelligence Training Center 
  -  Office of the Inspector General             
  -  Equal Opportunity & Diversity             
  -  Military Integration Office             
  -  History      -  DIA Museum             
    -  George Washington Letters             
    -  Directors of DIA             
    -  The Historians 
  -  Patriots Memorial             
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response             
  -  Contact Us 
-  News & Features    -  Articles             
  -  Videos             
  -  DIA in the News             
  -  Threat Reports             
  -  Photo Gallery             
  -  No FEAR             
  -  Podcasts             
  -  DIA Comics 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Career Fields      -  Analysis             
    -  Counterintelligence             
    -  Finance & Acquisition             
    -  Human Intelligence             
    -  Human Services             
    -  Information Technology             
    -  Inspector General             
    -  Legal             
    -  Mission Management             
    -  Office Management & Infrastructure             
    -  Science & Technology             
    -  Security 
  -  Search Vacancies             
  -  Apply to DIA             
  -  Hiring Process             
  -  Internships             
  -  Veteran Programs 
-  Business    -  Contractor Personnel Security             
  -  SIA3             
  -  SITE III             
  -  Innovation             
  -  NeedipeDIA             
  -  Office of Small Business Programs             
  -  Small Business FAQs 

HOMENEWS & FEATURES

Search

Search

                            - All Images 
                            - Other 

                            - Upload Date
                            - Photo Date
                            - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.24 MB)

Tags:Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA, DoDIIS19

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.2

The Board of Directors
Diamond Technology Partners Incorporated:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-31943 and No. 333-31965) on Form S-8 of Diamond Technology Partners
Incorporated of our reports dated April 17, 1998, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of Diamond Technology Partners Incorporated and subsidiary as of
March 31, 1997 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended March 31, 1998, and the related schedule, which reports appear in
the March 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Diamond Technology Partners
Incorporated.



                                           KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Chicago, Illinois
June 23, 1998
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A2248. RUFUS MAZYCK v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

ASSOCIATION.

JP Morgan Chase Bank Association filed a dispossessory action against Rufus

Mazyck in magistrate court. Following an adverse judgment, Mazyck appealed to the

state court, which entered final judgment and a writ of possession in favor of JP

Morgan. Mazyck then appealed directly to this Court. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

Because the order to be appealed disposes of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision, Mazyck was required to follow the discretionary appeal

procedures. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mortgage Corp. East,

216 Ga. App. 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). His failure to do so deprives us of

jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/26/2014

August 26, 2014
#### In the Matter of Gladys Aviles, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Herbert Shapiro, J.), entered on or about February 20, 1990, which denied petitioner’s application to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*238The claimant was treated for a fractured wrist at Lincoln Hospital and released on October 12, 1988. On November 21, 1988, she returned to the hospital complaining that the cast applied by hospital employees had become loose, allegedly as a result of malpractice by the respondent.

Claimant retained counsel as early as January 25, 1989. On that date, she signed a proposed notice of claim, which was, for unexplained reasons, never served. New counsel, who was retained on June 1, 1989, did not move for leave to file a late notice of claim until December, 1989, more than one year after claimant’s final treatment at the hospital. The IAS court denied the application, finding that claimant had not presented an acceptable excuse for prior counsel’s unexplained delay, together with additional delay by claimant’s present counsel.

We agree that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying claimant’s application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Our recent decision in *Perkins v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.*(167 AD2d 150) is dispositive of the issues now presented. In *Perkins,*which was similarly a malpractice case, we adhered to the proposition that a satisfactory explanation for the delay, which the claimant here has not presented, continues to be a significant factor to be considered, along with the other relevant circumstances, in weighing the merits of an application to serve a late notice of claim *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Moreover, we also held in *Matter of Mandia v County of Westchester*(162 AD2d 217) that where the plaintiff had fallen out of his hospital bed and broken his hip, the mere possession of the hospital records was insufficient to provide the respondent with actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim. Similarly, here, we refuse to impute knowledge of the claim to respondent as a result of the existence of hospital records concerning claimant’s treatment. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.