alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**862.3 KA 12-01876**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
DESTINY BELLAUS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WAGNER & HART, LLP, OLEAN (JANINE C. FODOR OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LORI PETTIT RIEMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY, FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered July 9, 2012. The appeal was held by this Court by order entered January 3, 2014, the decision was reserved and the matter was remitted to Cattaraugus County Court for further proceedings (113 AD3d 1113).
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by defendant on March 17, 2014, and the attorneys for the parties on March 25 and April 2, 2014,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed upon stipulation.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Re: Request for a memo
12/16/2011 05:28 PM

From: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 12/16/2011 04:49 PM Subject: Request for a memo

Hi Bob, Can you send us this memo referenced on page 441 of the redline: “The Impact of Emission Averaging Time on the Stringency of an Emission

Standard”

Thanks,
Cortney

Short-term_vs_Long-term_Hg_Rates v2.doc
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 10.6

                  DESCRIPTION OF 1998 COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
                          WITH LUBIN, DELANO & COMPANY

        During 1998, Lexington Precision Corporation (the "Company") compensated
Michael A. Lubin, its Chairman of the Board, and Warren Delano, its President,
indirectly through payments to Lubin, Delano & Company, an investment banking
firm of which they are the only partners. These compensation arrangements
provided for payment to Lubin, Delano & Company of a basic fee of $400,000, and
provided for a possible incentive fee based upon attaining an operating profit
target for the Company and possible transaction fees as might be agreed upon by
the Company and Lubin, Delano & Company in connection with acquisitions,
divestitures, financings and other similar transactions.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY;

DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-17826

D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00537-DAELEK

ORDER*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 16, 2012** 

Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: REINHARDT, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

In light of the Supreme Court of Hawai’i’s decision addressing the certified

questions in this case, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to

Defendants-Appellees and denying summary judgment to Plaintiff-Appellant is

FILED

MAR 28 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
VACATED. This case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings

consistent with the Supreme Court of Hawai’i’s decision in Nautilus Insurance Co.

v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. SCCQ-12-0000977, 2014 WL 560805 (Haw. Feb. 13,

2014). 

Each party shall bear its own costs on this appeal.
# Class_I
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GOMEZ-MUNOZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71558

Agency No. A089-111-589

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Jose Gomez-Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of

removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

FILED

APR 14 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
questions of law. Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 2008). We

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to Gomez-Munoz’ contention, the BIA applied the correct legal

standard in determining that he failed to establish that his removal would result in

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children. 

See id. at 497-98 (“Congress intended that discretion in cancellation of removal

cases be exercised on the basis of whether removal would result in an exceptional

and extremely unusual hardship to the citizen-children.” (emphasis in original)). 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Munoz’ contention that the IJ failed

to consider specific evidence in the record, where Gomez-Munoz failed to exhaust

this contention before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.

2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an

alien’s administrative proceedings).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Munoz’ contention that his

case warrants a favorable exercise of discretion and, accordingly, his request for

remand to the agency for administrative closure is denied. See Vilchiz-Soto v.

Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 13-71558
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00180-CV

IN RE Richard Cecil PETERSON and Alma Peterson

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 30, 2015, relators Richard and Alma Peterson filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus complaining of the trial court’s order granting a motion for partial summary judgment 

in favor of one of the defendants in the underlying medical malpractice suit. The court has 

considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relators are not entitled 

to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012-CI-08827, styled Richard Cecil Peterson and Alma Peterson v. John 

Lawrence Jimenez, M.D.; Brian Phillip Perry, M.D.; Christopher Ayers Bogaev, M.D., Richard Kurt Newman, M.D.; 

and Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd., LLP d/b/a Methodist Hospital, pending in the 150th Judicial 

District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
Complete Structural Diagram of Idealised Compound.

Sanitised copy
Order entered April 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00651-CR

STEVEN MICHAEL GOODE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court At Law No. 1

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 30921CC

ORDER

The reporter’s record of the October 11, 2013 suppression hearing in this case was not 

filed in this Court. Appellant cites to it in his brief and it is apparent the record has been 

transcribed. Accordingly, we ORDER Scott Smith, Official Court Reporter of the County Court 

at Law, Kaufman County, Texas, to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this Order, a 

supplemental record of the October 11, 2013 suppression hearing, including all exhibits admitted 

into evidence during that hearing. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by 

electronic transmission, to Scott Smith, Official Court Reporter, County Court at Law, Kaufman 

County, Texas, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
* 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. 06-50198 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. HERMAN SALDANA JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-258-ALL Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Herman Saldana, Jr., raises arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. DeJesus Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 162 (5th Cir. 2005), which held that proofofspecific intent to violate immigration laws is not an element of the offense ofalien harboring. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
_____________

No. 95-2281WA

_____________

Tom Brown, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Kenneth McKee; United States *

Marshal's Service, *

*

Appellees, *

_________________________ *

*

Tom Brown; *

*

Appellant, *

*

Byron R. Lawler; Lynn Earl *

Conley; David Bryan Reed; *

Jerold Jetton, Jr.; Lewis Reed; *

Benjamin Pavan; Brent May, *

*

Plaintiffs, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Kenneth McKee, Sheriff, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Washington County, Arkansas; *

United States Marshal's Service,*

*

Appellees, *

_________________________ *

*

Tom Brown; *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Stephen E. Barnett; Robert *

Jackson Bibey; Ronald Roe; *

David Bryan Reed; Lynn Earl *

Conley; Brent May; Jerold *

Jetton, Jr.; Byron R. Lawler; *

Terry Tague; *

*

Plaintiffs, *

*
-2-

Kenneth McKee, Sheriff *

Washington County Sheriff's *

Department, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: June 4, 1996

 Filed: June 6, 1996

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Tom Brown appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his three

42 U.S.C. § 1983 cases involving claims of denial-of-court-access,

interference with religious freedom, and jail-cell overcrowding. Having

carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the

district court correctly dismissed these actions for the reasons stated in

the magistrate judge's thorough report. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Services

Federal Grain Inspection Service

Policy Bulletins

7/14/2023

SUBJECT DATE REFERENCE #

FY 22

New Instruction for Entering Export 

Shiplot Data into DEC

1-26-2022 Ref #290

New Phytosanitary Requirements 

for Australia

1-12-2022 Ref# 289

Clarifying Certification of Sample 

Grade Factors

1-12-2022 Ref #288

Certifying Cultivated Buckwheat 

Count in Wheat

12-14-2021 Ref #287

Hop Submitted Sample Certificate 

Inspection Revision

9-01-2021 Ref #286

FY 21

Inspection Completed Time on 

Stowage Exams for Railcars

4-02-2021 Ref #285

FY 16

Launch Boat Safety 10-14-2016 Ref #271

Picking up Submitted Samples 5-01-2016 Ref #267

FY 15

Certification of Falling Number 

Based On Composite Samples

10-30-2015 Ref #264

Country of Destination on 921-2 for 

Cargo Transloading in Canada

9-25-2015 Ref #263

Container Stowage Exams 1-16-2015 Ref #262

FY 14

Performing Stowage Exams on 

Rail when Probe Sampling is Requested

11-07-2014 Ref #261

88 Hour Rule for Containers 1-14-2014 Ref #258

FY 12

Mycotoxin Reinspection Options 

for Unit Trains

2-10-2012 Ref #244

FY 11

Unit Train Inspection Options 5-05-2011 Ref #238
FGIS Policy Bulletins

SUBJECT DATE REFERENCE #

FY 10

Official Commerical Inspection 

Results reported on a U.S. Warehouse Act Certificate

5-18-2010 Ref #232 

Transferring Sublots 2-19-2010 Ref #230

Limiting Analysis of Lots Containing Deleterious Substances, 

and Testing Plant Environmental 

Material Collected During Plant 

Sanitation Inspection

1-29-2010 Ref #228

Maintaining Records Of Service 

Requests

12-21-2009 Ref #224

FY 08

“Average Quality” Unit Trains 11-05-2008 Ref #218

FY 07

Samples for Informational Purposes1-08-2007 Ref #212

FY 06

CuSum “Average” Grade Interpretation11-01-2006 Ref #211

FY 99

Switching Inspection Procedures 

for Unit Trains

6-17-1999 Ref #175
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1369

POWEROASIS, INC. and POWEROASIS NETWORKS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. WAYPORT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Sibley P. Reppert , Lahive & Cockfield LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on t he brief was William A. Scofield, Jr.
William F. Lee , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Ha le and Dorr LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were David B. Bassett , Christopher J. Meade , and Amr O. Aly , of New York, New York. Appealed from: United States District C ourt for the District of Massachusetts Judge Rya W. ZobelNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1369

POWEROASIS, INC. and POWEROASIS NETWORKS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. WAYPORT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in case no. 04-CV-12023, Jud ge Rya W. Zobel.

______________________________ DECIDED: April 11, 2008

______________________________ Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and MOORE, Circuit Judges

. MOORE, Circuit Judge

. PowerOasis, Inc. and PowerOasis Networ ks, LLC (PowerOasis) raise a number of claim construction arguments on appeal follo wing the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s grant of su mmary judgment that cl aims 15, 18, 31, 35, 38, 40, and 49 of U.S. Pat ents Nos. 6,466,658 (‘658 patent) and 6,721,400 (‘400 patent) are not infringed by Wayport, Inc. We vacate and remand

. We need not discuss the specifics of Powe rOasis’s arguments because of our decision in PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. , No. 2007-1265 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2008), which holds claims 15, 18, 31, 35, 38, 40, and 49 of the ‘658 and ‘400 patentsinvalid. Accordingly, we vacate the distri ct court's grant of su mmary judgment of noninfringement and remand with instructions fo r the district court to enter judgment consistent with our hold ing that claims 15, 18, 31, 35, 38, 40, and 49 of the ‘658 and ‘400 patents are invalid.

2007-1369 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Bar Association
Members/State Street Collective Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the
period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James S. Phalen, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:


         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
         or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of the Company.




                                                   /s/ James S. Phalen
                                                   --------------------
                                                   James S. Phalen
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   July 11, 2005
Exhibit 32.1
                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Secured Diversified
Investment, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clifford L. Strand, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



May 17, 2004


            /s/ Clifford L. Strand
            ----------------------------------------
            Clifford L. Strand, President and
            Chief Executive Officer

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9499]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>13060 and <greek-i>13061]


Oregon Disaster <greek-i>OR-00042

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of OREGON dated 04/02/2012.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm System.
    Incident Period: 01/17/2012 through 01/21/2012.
    Effective Date: 04/02/2012.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/01/2012.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/02/2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Marion.
Contiguous Counties:
    Oregon: Clackamas, Jefferson, Linn, Polk, Wasco, Yamhill.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      4.125
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.063
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.125
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13060B 
and for economic injury is 130610.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is Oregon.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: April 2, 2012.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-9499 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-15-00084-CV

TOM J. JONES, Appellant 

V.

DINH TRAN & SONNY & ANNA, LLC, Appellees 

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 2 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1055023 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

The notice of appeal in this case was filed January 21, 2015. Appellant filed 

an affidavit of indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. On February 25, 2015, a partial 

clerk’s record was filed reflecting that on February 24, 2015, the trial court signed 

an order sustaining a contest to appellant’s claim of indigence. Appellant did not

seek review of the trial court’s ruling. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j).
2

On March 10, 2015, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing 

fee on or before March 25, 2015, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has 

not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant 

has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other action 

within specified time).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7828

RICKY RAISZONER GARDNER, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus COLIE L. RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-03-3991-4-27) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 4, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Raiszoner Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ricky Raiszoner Gardner, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 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 the district court’s assessment of 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 Gardner 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED