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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6201

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CURTIS WASHINGTON, a/k/a Murk,

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00050-FL-1; 4:18-cv-00189-

FL)

Submitted: September 1, 2022 Decided: October 6, 2022

Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Washington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6201 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/06/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Washington’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 

759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court 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. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington 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 legal contentions 

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

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6201 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/06/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1202

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * *
v. * * Kevin Vetter, * * Defendant Third Party * Plaintiff-Appellant, * *
v. * * Appeal from the United States Consolidated Farm Service Agency, * District Court for the formerly known as Agricultural * District of North Dakota. Stabilization and Conservation Service; * United States Department of Agriculture; * [UNPUBLISHED] The Commodity Credit Corporation; The * Burleigh County Consolidated Farm * Service Office; Scott Stofferan, his * predecessor or successor, in their * official capacity, and as individuals; * Jean Schoenhard, her predecessor or * successor, in their official capacity, and * as individuals; Marvin Hochhalter, his * predecessor or successor, in their * official capacity, and as individuals; * George Hohimer, his prececessor or * successor, in their official capacity, and * as individuals; Edwin McCarty, his * predecessor or successor, in their *The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge for the District 1 of North Dakota.
-2- official capacity, and as individuals, * * Third Party Defendants- * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 11, 1997 Filed: December 18, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Vetter appeals from the district court & s gra nt of summary judgment to the 1 UnitedStates and its dismissal with prejudice of his counterclaims and third-party cross-claims, as well as from its denial of his postjudgment motion to reconsider, in this action by the United States to recover unearned deficiency payments and interest from him. Having carefu lly reviewed the record and the parties & submissions, we conclude the district court was correct and an extended discussion is unnecessary. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). SR / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. MAR T I N H E RNA ND E Z - OL GU I N, AK A Al v a r o Ma rt i n He rn a n d e z - F u e n t e s , AK A M a rt i n H e rna nde z - O l qui n, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 10350 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 6 - c r - 0 1 6 1 0 - FRZ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona F r a nk R . Z apa t a , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 16, 2010 ** B e f o r e : S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L I N S O N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . M a rt i n H e rna nde z - O l gui n appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 66- m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rille g a l r e e n trya f

te rd e p o rta tio n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . 1 3 2 6 . 

# FI LED APR01 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSS R/ Res ea r ch 08- 10350 2 P ur s ua ntt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ), H ern an d ez -O lg u in ’s c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng the r e a r e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr a w a s c ouns e l of r e c or d. W e ha ve pr ovi de d the appe l l antw i th the opportuni tyt o f

i l e apr o s e s uppl e m e nt a lbr i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f or a ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s A FFI R M ED .
III 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 498 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United States support for 

the State of Israel as it defends itself against unprovoked rocket attacks 

from the Hamas terrorist organization. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 10, 2014 

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. 

MCCAIN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. KIRK, Mr. TOOMEY, 

Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. MORAN, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. HELLER, Mr. INHOFE, 

Mrs. FISCHER, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. VITTER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. NELSON, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. THUNE, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. 

SCOTT, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. 

CASEY, Mr. WICKER, Mr. COATS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. 

KAINE, Mr. LEE, and Mr. BEGICH) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding United States 

support for the State of Israel as it defends itself against 

unprovoked rocket attacks from the Hamas terrorist organization. 

Whereas Hamas is a United States-designated terrorist organization whose charter calls for the destruction of the 

State of Israel; 

Whereas Hamas continues to reject the core principles of the 

Middle East Quartet (the United Nations, the United 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 498 IS 

States, the European Union, and Russia)—recognize 

Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements; 

Whereas Hamas has killed hundreds of Israelis and dozens 

of Americans in rocket attacks and suicide bombings; 

Whereas, since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, 

Hamas and other terrorist groups have fired thousands 

of rockets at Israel; 

Whereas Hamas has entered into a unity governing arrangement with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority; 

Whereas the unity governing agreement implies Fatah’s and 

the Palestinian Authority’s support for Hamas’ belligerent actions against Israel, potentially contributing to a 

false perception of legitimacy for Hamas’ belligerent actions; 

Whereas, since June 2014, Hamas has fired nearly 300 rockets at Israel; 

Whereas Hamas’ weapons arsenal includes approximately 

12,000 rockets that vary in range; 

Whereas innocent Israeli civilians are indiscriminately targeted by Hamas rocket attacks; and 

Whereas 5,000,000 Israelis are currently living under the 

threat of rocket attacks from Gaza: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) reaffirms its support for Israel’s right to de3 fend its citizens and ensure the survival of the State 

4 of Israel; 

5 (2) condemns the unprovoked rocket fire at 

6 Israel; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 498 IS 

1 (3) calls on Hamas to immediately cease all 

2 rocket and other attacks against Israel; and 

3 (4) calls on Palestinian Authority President 

4 Mahmoud Abbas to dissolve the unity governing ar5 rangement with Hamas and condemn the attacks on 

6 Israel. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1234 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain 

rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2009 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. 

COCHRAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BURR, Mr. VITTER, and 

Mr. BUNNING) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States 

courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade 

names, or commercial names. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION. 

4 Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Re5 lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in 

6 section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105–277; 112 

7 Stat. 2681–88) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)(2)— 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 1234 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘by a designated national’’; 

2 and 

3 (B) by inserting before the period ‘‘that 

4 was used in connection with a business or as5 sets that were confiscated unless the original 

6 owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial 

7 name, or the bonafide successor-in-interest has 

8 expressly consented’’; 

9 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘by a des10 ignated national or its successor-in-interest’’; 

11 (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub12 section (e); 

13 (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall 

16 apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew 

17 or had reason to know at the time when the person or 

18 entity acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade 

19 name, or commercial name was the same as or substan20 tially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name 

21 that was used in connection with a business or assets that 

22 were confiscated.’’; and 

23 (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by 

24 striking ‘‘In this section:’’ and all that follows 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

•S 1234 IS

1 through ‘‘(2) The term’’ and inserting ‘‘In this sec2 tion, the term’’. 

Æ 


tjames on PRODPC75 with BILLS
#### John Reed Pearson, Appellant, v. James W. Archibald *et al.,*Appellees.

*In Banc.*

Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval county; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.

Doggett & VanDeman and Cooper & Cooper for appellant.

Alex. W. Smith, Wm. B. Young and E. J. L’Engle for appellees.

The bill in this cause was filed by the appellant against the appellees. There was decree for the defendants and the complainant appeals. Appeal dismissed by the clerk, on praecipe of counsel for the appellant, under Rule 24.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11566-11567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4565]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLWY910000 L16100000 XX0000]


Public Meeting; Wyoming Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wyoming Resource Advisory 
Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

DATES: The meetings will be held March 28 (8 a.m.-5 p.m.) and March 29 
(8 a.m.-3 p.m.), 2012.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be at the Hilton Garden Inn and University 
of Wyoming Conference Center, 2229 Grand Avenue, Laramie, WY 82070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Wertz, Wyoming Resource Advisory 
Council Coordinator, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone, Cheyenne, 
WY 82009; telephone 307-775-6014; email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb988c9e898f81bb999796d59c948d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b485c4e595f516b494746054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to 
contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is 
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question 
with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal 
business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 10-member RAC advises the Secretary of 
the Interior on a variety of management issues associated with public 
land management in Wyoming.
    Planned agenda topics include an update from the University of 
Wyoming faculty on current projects and research, follow-up on last 
meeting's planning and cooperating agency discussion, and

[[Page 11567]]

an update on restoration and reclamation projects.
    All RAC meetings are open to the public with time allocated for 
hearing public comments. On March 29, there will be a 30-minute public 
comment period at 1 p.m. The public may also submit written comments to 
the RAC. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time 
available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

Larry Claypool,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-4565 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.27 MB)

Tags:Accountability, DLA Aviation, DSCR, Joint Reserve Force, Strong Partnerships

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
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 DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.13 MB)

Tags:DSCC, DLA Land and Maritime

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2162

_____________________________ C HARLES W. L EWIS ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S KYE N. C LIBURN , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

— O riginal Jurisdiction

.

September 12, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of prohibition is denied on the merits.

W OLF , K ELSEY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion unde r Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

David A. Carroll, Pensacola
, for Petitioner

.2 Stephanie N. Greaves of Tonya C. Petermann, P.A., Ft. Walton Beach
, for Respondent

.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-1059 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NE-36-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

FSN Replacement 2.5 $ 212.50 $146,594 $146,806.50 150 $22,020,975.

00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $22,020,975

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: