alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T he Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). Because Harris & s petition was filed in 1995, we do not apply 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 2 as amended b y the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3601

___________ Paul A. Harris, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLIS HED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: November 3, 1997 Filed: November 6, 1997

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

___________ PER CURIAM.
Paul A. Harris, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals th e District Court & s dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 (1994) petition as an abuse of the writ. See Cochrell v

.

2Pub. L. No. 1 04-132, 110 Stat. 1214. See Lindh v. Murphy , 117 S. Ct. 2059, 206 8

(1997) (holding AEDPA applicable only to cases filed after its enactment). -2- Purkett , 113 F.3d 124, 126 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting tha t abus ive petition raises new claims that were availabl e but n ot raised in prior petition; merits of abusiv e clai ms are unreviewable absent showing of either caus e and prejudice or actual innocence) (citations omitted)

. While we agree with Harris that a novel legal claim ma y constitute cause, see Heffernan v. Norris , 48 F.3d 331 , 333 (8th Cir. 1995), the legal argument Harris advance s is not novel and was available to Harris during th e pende ncy of his first § 2254 petition, see Jackson v

. Norris , 105 F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 11 8 S. Ct. 125 (1997).

We th us find no abuse of discretion in dismissin g Harris & s § 2254 petition, see Nachtigall v. Class , 48 F.3 d 1076, 1 079 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), and w e affirm the judgment of the District Court. A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Matthew Rodriquez Secretary for En vi ronm ental Protection

March 21, 2016 Mr. Jared Blumenfeld Regional Administrator 

# Air Resources Board Mary D. Nichols, Chair 1001 I Street o P .O
. Box 2815 Sacramento , California 95812 o www .arb .ca .gov

U .S
. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco , California 94105 Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor

Enclosed is a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) , consisting of El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Rule 523-1, Federal Nonattainment New Source Review, listed in Enclosure 

### A. The rule was adopted on March 8, 2016 . Also enclosed is Air Resources Board Executive Order S-16-002 adopting the district's rule as a revision to the SIP. To meet the U .S
. Environmental Protection Agency criteria for determining that rule submittals are administratively and technically complete , we have enclosed evaluations of the effects of the rule on emissions , evaluations of the rule 's consistency with 40 CFR 51 , and other supporting documentation provided to us by the district. One compact disc and one paper copy , each containing the revision in its entirety, are enclosed. If you have any questions·, please have your staff contact Ms . Karen Magliano , Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, at (916) 322-5350 or by email at Karen . Magliano@arb
.ca.gov . Sincerely ,



# ~U/, R1chard W. Corey Executive Officer Enclosures cc: See next page .

The ener gychallenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. Fora list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cutyour energy cost s, see our website: http://www
.arb .ca.gov. California Environmental Protection Agency Printed on Recycled PaperMr. Jared Blumenfeld March 21 , 2016

. Page 2

cc: Mr. Dave Johnston Air Pollution Control Officer El Dorado County Air Quality Management District 330 Fair Lane Placerville , California 95667-4100 Mr. Alan Abbs Executive Director California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 1107 Ninth Street, Suite 1005 Sacramento , California 95814 Mr. Andy Steckel, Chief Rulemaking Office (Air-4) , Region 9 U .S
. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco , California 95105 Ms . Karen Magliano , Chief Air Quality Planning and Science Division
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, March 07, 2024, 10:00 a.m. to March 08, 2024, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 09, 2024, FR Doc. 2024-02654, 89 FR 9165.                

This notice is being amended to change this from a two-day meeting on March 7-8, 2024, to a one-day meeting on March 7, 2024. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: February 9, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-03102 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Jimmy Elwin NEWTON et al., Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37133.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1964.

Robert B. Billings, Dallas, for appellants.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Ben F. Ellis and C. M. Turlington, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal by a surety in a bond forfeiture case.

No brief has been filed in this Court as ■required by Rule 414, Rules of Civil Procedure, which is applicable in bond forfeiture cases. Art. 866 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

Failure to comply with the rule mentioned authorizes dismissal of the appeal. Rule 415 R.C.P.; Sherrill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 721, and cases cited under Note 1, Art. 866, V.A.C.C.P.

The appeal is dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6851

THOMAS LEE BELCHER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:10-cv-00823-REP)

Submitted: November 3, 2011 Decided: November 30, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Allen Ratliff, ROBERT A. RATLIFF, PC, Mobile, Alabama; 

Jennifer T. Stanton, J.T. STANTON, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Lee Belcher seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 debatable 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 is 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 Belcher 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
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
September 1 3 , 2012



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BILLY JOE GARZA , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00558

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this c ourt holds that there was no error in the judgment. The c ourt orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
SERVED MAY 23, 2012 ~~r}'ARTMENT OF 

u.s. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION: ,:_>\>lSPORTATIQN 

In The Matter Of: 

COASTAL AIR 

TRANSPORT, INC., 

Respondent 

oFFicE oF HEARINGs · ~c:<ET OPER/~TIONS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ZD!Z 1:.\Y 2 L! A q: 2 8 

Docket No. FAA-2011-1005 

Case No. 2010S0700037 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION 

FOR CONTINUANCE OF SECOND CR 16 CONFERENCE 

On April 2, 2012 an Order Setting a Second Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference, and Directing Rule 26(£) Planning and Submission was filed;· Among other. 

things, this Order set the Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference for Wednesday, May 

23, 2012. 

On May 17,2012 the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

filed the parties' joint Rule 26(£) Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Plan. 

On May 18, 2012 the Respondent, Coastal Air Transport, Inc., filed a Request for 

Change of Venue (sic), noting that the FAA did not object to the Respondent's request to 

continue the May 23, 2012 to another date (unspecified). 

On May 18, 2012 the Office of Hearings (OH) clerical staff contacted both the 

FAA and the Respondent by telephone, and the parties agreed to re-set the CR 16 

Conference from May 23, 2012 to June 11, 2012 at 11 :OOam EST. 

It Is Hereby Ordered: 

The Respondent's Motion for Continuance is granted. The Second CR 16 

Conference previously set on May 23, 2012 is continued to June 11, 2012 at 11 :OOam 

EST. 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL· 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

George Logan, Agent for Service 

Coastal Air Transport, Inc., Respondent 

1131 King Street, Suite 204 

Christiansted, St. Croix,.VI 00820-4971 

Michael Foster, President 

Coastal Air Transport, Inc., Respondent 

P.O. Box 3985 

Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00822 

TEL:. 340-773-6862 

ONE COPY 

Rashawn Rich George, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 ----

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-1005 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 29, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WENDEL ROBERT WARDELL, JR., 

No. 13-1339

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00037-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

Petitioner–Appellant,

v.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Colorado

Department of Corrections; ARCHIE B.

LONGLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

COLORADO,

Respondents–Appellees.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Wendel Wardell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of

appealability to appeal the district court’s denial of his § 2254 habeas petition. Petitioner

filed this § 2254 petition in January 2013 to challenge his 1996 Colorado convictions for

theft and forgery. Petitioner’s sentence for these convictions expired when he was

released on parole in 2004, and his sentence was fully discharged in 2008. Because

Petitioner’s sentence was discharged more than four years before he filed his federal

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
habeas petition, the district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition

based on the “custody” requirement of § 2254(a). The court dismissed the action for lack

of jurisdiction.

Petitioner contends he satisfies the custody requirement because he is currently in

custody in a federal prison on a federal sentence that was ordered to run consecutively to

any sentence previously imposed. However, the district court clearly explained why this

argument is incorrect, with citation to applicable legal authorities. See, e.g., Brown v.

Warden, 315 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2003) (rejecting essentially the same argument in a

similar case). Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s resolution of this

case. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

We accordingly DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and

DISMISS the appeal. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

GRANTED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

-2-
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**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 ofToo Late Financial Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

/s/ Anthony N. DeMint                                    

Anthony N. DeMint

President and Chief Accounting Officer

May 5, 2006
----

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 Destination Television, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ending July 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Scott Venters, President, 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.

Date: September 17, 2007

| /s/ Gordon Scott Venters                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| Gordon Scott Venters,          President and Chief Executive Officer          (principal executive officer) and          Acting Chief Financial Officer          (principal financial officer and          principal accounting officer). |
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit No. 15



April 29, 2002


Armstrong Holdings, Inc.
Lancaster, Pennsylvania

Re:  Registration Statement No. 333-74501; 33-91890; 33-18996; 33-18997;
     33-65768; 333-74633; 333-79093; 333-43872


With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated April 29, 2002 related to our
review of interim financial information of Armstrong Holdings, Inc.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), such report
is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#### Mrs. Irene EDWARDS, Appellant, v. Jo Beth MILLER et al., Appellees.

No. 6903.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

July 5, 1956.

B. L. Collins, Lufkin, for appellant.

Lawrence & Lawrence, F. Lee Lawrence, Tyler, for appellees.

DAVIS, Justice.

This suit originated in the County Court of Smith County and involves property devised by a will. Judgment of the County Court was signed and entered on August 10, 1955. A cash deposit in lieu of appeal bond was made by appellant on August 12, 1955. The original and amended pleadings, and the original judgment of the County Court were filed in the District Court on September 15, 1955. The record before us does not reveal that a transcript of the proceedings in the County Court was filed .in the District Court as required by Rule 330(a), V.A.T.R.C.P., or a certified copy of the County Court judgment as required by Rule 334, V.A.T.R.C.P. Neither the pleadings, -transcript or certified copy of the judgment of the County Court having been filed in the District Court within 30 days after the date of the judgment of the County Court, the District Court was without jurisdiction to try the case. Callahan v. Stover, Tex.Civ.App., 263 S.W.2d 630, error ref.; Richards v. National Bank of Commerce of Houston, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 761, error ref.; Buford v. Baldwin, Tex.Civ.App., 287 S.W.2d 301, no writ history; Jones v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 291 S.W.2d 425;

The judgment of the District •'Court is set aside and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal from the County Court.
#### E. E. CRAVENS, Appellant, v. F. R. WATSON, Appellee.

No. 13029.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 19, 1956.

Lewright, Dyer & Bedford, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Terry, Martin & Bonilla, Dean B. Kirk-ham, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

The court below overruled the plea of privilege of appellant, E. E. Cravens, to be sued in Bexar County, where he resided, upon the theory that venue could be maintained in Nueces County under exception No. 9a of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Tex. Civ. Stats. It was shown that appellee, Watson’s car was involved in a collision with another automobile in Nueces County, hut it was not shown that Cravens or anyone under his control was driving this “other car” at the time of the collision.

Exception 9a expressly provides that:

> “The venue facts necessary for plaintiff to establish by the preponderance of the evidence to sustain venue in a county other than the county of defendant’s residence are:

> *840“1. That an act or omission of negligence occurred in the county where suit was filed.

> “2. *That such act or omission was that of the defendant, in person, or that of his servant, agent or representative acting within the scope of his employment.*

> *“3.*That such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.”

As appellee failed to prove an essential venue fact set forth in the statute, the order appealed from must be reversed. Cases such as Globe Laundry v. McLean, Tex.Civ.App., 19 S.W.2d 94, and Mrs. Baird’s Bakery v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App.. 54 S.W.2d 1031, involving the “branded car” doctrine, are not in point as there was no proof that the automobile involved in the collision with Watson’s car bore the name of appellant, Cravens, or any other insignia for that matter.

The order appealed from is accordingly reversed, appellant’s plea of privilege sustained and the cause transferred to the District Court of Bexar County.

Reversed and rendered.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, McCullough and Senior Judge Bumgardner

EARNEST COLLINS MEMORANDUM OPINION *

v. Record No. 0014

- 13

- 3 PER CURIAM APRIL 23, 2013 LEBO MINING CO. AND

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE CO MPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

( Stephen W. Mullins , on brief), for appellant

.
( S. Vernon Priddy III ; Sarah Y.M. Himmel; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C. , on brief), for appellee s

.

Earnest Collins (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission

awarding him medical benefits pursuant to Code § 65.2

- 603 for the occupational disease of coal

worker’s pneumoconiosis and affirming the deputy commissioner’s denial of compensation for

the occupational disease pursuant to Code § 65.2

- 504(A)(1). Claimant contends the c ommission

erred by denying him compensatio n under Code § 65.2

- 504(A)(1).

We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the r easons stated by the commission in its final

opinion. See Collins v. Lebo Mining Co. , JCN VA020

- 0000

- 4732 (Dec

. 3, 2012 ). We dispense

with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the material s before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

See Code § 17.1

- 403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---