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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6527

ROY HASKELL PRICE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MCKITHER BODISON,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(0:08-cv-03451-TLW)

Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Haskell Price, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roy Haskell Price seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on 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) (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 Price 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
PROPOSAL UNDER THESMALLCOMMUNITYAIRSERVICEDEVELOPMENTPROGRAMARCATA/EUREKAAIRPORT

Page 1 

# S UMMARY 

# I NFORMATION

A. Applicant Information:

( Check all that apply)

X Not a

Consortium Interstate

Consortium Intrastate

Consortium

Community now receives EAS subsidy

X Community (or Consortium member) previously

received a Small Community Grant

If previous recipient

, d ate of grant: 2004 ; Expiration date of grant: September 14, 2006

B. Public/Private Partnerships:

(List organization names)

Public Private

Humboldt County

Arcata/Eureka Airport Redwood Region

Economic Development

Commission

C

. Project Proposal:

(C heck all that apply)

X Marketing X Start

- Up Cost

Offset

Travel Bank X Secure Additional

Service

Surface

Transportation X New Route

X Launch New Carrier Subsidy

Study X Revenue

Guarantee

Upgrade Aircraft First Service

Service Restoration Other (specify): Regional Service

D. Existing Landing Aids at Local Airport:

X Full ILS X Published Instrument Approach

X Localizer X Outer/Middle Marker

X Other (specify): GPS E. Project Cost:

Line Description Sub

Total Total

Amount

1 Federal amount

requested $480,000

2 State cash financial

contribution $0

Local cash financial

contribution

3a. Airport cash funds $ 5,000

3b. Non

- airport cash

funds $ 69,220

3 Total local cash funds

(3a+3b) $74 ,220

4 TOTAL CASH FUNDING

(1+2+3) $554 ,220

In

- Kind contribution

5a. Airport In

- Kind

contribution ** $37,54 5

5b. Other In

- Kind

contribution** $ 73,800

5 TOTAL IN

- KIND

CONTRIBUTION

(5a+5b) $1 11,345

6 TOTAL PROJECT

COST (4+5) $ 665,565

F. In

- Kind Contributions** :

For funds in lines 5a (Airport In

- Kind contribution) and 5b

(Other In

- Kind contribution), please describe the source(s) of

fund(s) for each.

Airport : L anding fee waiver ; program administration

Other : M arketing ; program administration

G. Is this application

subject to review by

S tate under Executive

Order 12372 process?

c. Program is not

covered by E.O.

12372.

H. Is the Applicant

delinquent on any

Federal debt? (if “yes”,

provide explanation)

No X X
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FLOYD M. MINKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Defendant-Cross Appellant. 

____________________ 

2010-1106, -1132 

______________________

 

 Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida in no. 05-CV-1894, Judge 

Gregory A. Presnell. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

STEVEN L. BRANNOCK, Brannock & Humphries, of 

Tampa, Florida, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him 

on the brief was SARAH C. PELLENBARG. 

ANTHONY C. ROTH, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellant. 

With him on the brief was MICHELLE P. NGUYEN. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (RADER, Chief Judge, PLAGER, and 

GAJARSA, Circuit Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 10, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

JEROME CORSI and LARRY 

KLAYMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INFOWARS, LLC, FREE SPEECH 

SYSTEMS, LLC, ALEX E. JONES, 

DAVID JONES, and OWEN SHROYER,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.1:20-CV-00298-LY

ORDER

BE IT REMEMBERED on this the _____ day of May, 2020, there was presented to the 

Court Defendant David Jones’s Status Report and Request for Status Conference, and filings by 

the other parties. The Court, having reviewed the parties’ filings, held a status conference on May 

___, 2020, and enters the following order:

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ shall, by May ___, 2020, show cause why David Jones 

should not be dismissed from this action at this time and why continued inclusion of David Jones 

as a Defendant in this action does not violate Rule 11(b). Defendant David Jones may file a 

response within seven (7) days of Plaintiffs’ filing. Plaintiffs’ failure to submit a filing by that 

deadline will result in the immediate dismissal of Defendant David Jones from this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will now consider Defendants’ previously filed 

Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which has already been fully briefed and is ripe for 
adjudication.

SIGNED this the ______ day of May, 2020.

___________________________________

HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

LAURA JAQUEZ, §

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:20-CV-141-RFC

§

ANDREW SAUL, §

Commissioner of the §

Social Security Administration, §

 Defendant. §

ORDER

On this day, the Court considered “Plaintiff’s Motion to File Complaint Without Payment 

of Fees.” (ECF. No. 1). The case was directly assigned to this Court pursuant to the Standing 

Order “In Re: Procedures for the Pilot Project and the Direct Assignment to Magistrate Judges of 

Civil Proceedings.” After review of the financial affidavit (ECF No.1:2) and Complaint (ECF No. 

1-1), the Court finds that Plaintiff should not be required to prepay fees or costs, or to pay the filing 

fee in advance for the instant civil proceeding.

Accordingly, the Court enters the following ORDERS:

1. The Court GRANTS “Plaintiff’s Motion to File Complaint Without Payment of Fees”

(ECF No. 1). 

2. The Court ORDERS the District Clerk to file Plaintiff’s civil complaint (ECF No. 1-

1), without prepaying costs or fees. 

3. The District Clerk SHALL FURNISH the United States Marshal with copies of the 

Complaint, the Summons, and the Order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 

and the Marshal shall SERVE the same upon the Defendant. All costs of service shall 

be advanced by the United States. 

SIGNED and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2020.

ROBERT F. CASTANEDA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-00141-RFC Document 3 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5282 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5282

           To reduce temporarily the duty on sodium alginate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Ms. Pingree of Maine introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To reduce temporarily the duty on sodium alginate.

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

SECTION 1. SODIUM ALGINATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Sodium alginate     2.1%            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          (CAS No. 9005-38-                                                 12/31/2015
                          3) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3913.10.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ex parte AEBY.

No. 24828.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 19, 1950.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1950.

Hardin & Hardin, Mays & Mays, by Chas. Mays, and Dave Miller, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Stewart W. Heilman, Crim. Dist. Atty., W. H. Tolbert, James E. Whitmore, Asst. Crim. Dist. Attys., of Fort Worth, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

This is a second application for a writ of habeas corpus by relator, his first application being our No. 24,784, decided March 22, 1950, 228 S.W.2d 176; such last numbered case being affirmed in which a denial of bail by the trial court was upheld.

In his present case, relator alleges that since his first application for the writ of habeas corpus was heard and disposed of, “there has come to his knowledge new, important and material evidence in his behalf, none of which was produced on any of the previous trials, and none of which was known to him until this the 3rd day of April, 1950.”

In his allegation relator was evidently governed by Article 171, Vernon’s Ann.C. C.P., which reads in part as follows: “A party may obtain the writ of habeas corpus a second time by stating in application therefor that since the hearing of his first application important testimony has been obtained which it was not in his power to produce at the former hearing,” etc.

Attached to this application we find the affidavit of one, Odessa Coyle, which says in substance that she saw relator about the hour of 7:00 or 7:30 o’clock P.M., on January 17, 1950, at Dallas, Texas; that he delivered some clothes at her house in Dallas at such hour.

Relator does not show that the testimony of this witness was not in his power to produce at the former hearing other than he says he did not remember at such hearing that he had visited this witness’ home in Dallas at such time; that he could not remember about this trip at the first hearing.

We are impressed with the belief that the fact now offered as new and important testimony was known to him at the time of the first hearing and should not be used by the trial court in this second hearing. The *379materiality of such testimony is only shown that on January 17, 1950, near 7:30 o’clock P.M., he was seen at Dallas, Texas. The indictment in the original cause alleges the •offense to have been committed on January 17, 1950 in Tarrant County, Texas, and the proof in our Cause No. 24,784, shows that the offense charged took place “late at night”, appellant being identified by the two parties who were robbed at such time. The fact that relator was seen in Dallas at about 7:30 P.M., would not be evidence that he was not seen thereafter “late at night” in Fort Worth, in an adjoining county.

We think the trial judge was correct in holding that relator was not entitled to a ■second writ of habeas corpus, and also correct in remanding him to jail without bond.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5493 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5493

    To renew the temporary suspension of duty on certain artificial 
                         filament single yarn.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

  Mr. Rothman of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To renew the temporary suspension of duty on certain artificial 
                         filament single yarn.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ARTIFICIAL FILAMENT SINGLE YARN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.26.12 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to artificial filament single 
yarn (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, of viscose 
rayon, untwisted or with a twist not exceeding 120 turns/m) is amended 
by striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/
31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JACK MILLER, ANNABEL CAMPBELL, §

MATTHEW PESINA, LISA PESINA, M.P., a §

Minor and J.G., a Minor, §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

V. §

§

CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, In His §

Individual and Official Capacities, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-cv-00642 JKP

OFFICER JIM WELLS, In His Individual and §

Official Capacities, OFFICER ANDERSON, §

In His Individual and Official Capacities, §

OFFICER SAUCEDO, In His Individual and §

Official Capacities, OFFICER J. VASQUEZ, §

In His Individual and Official Capacities, §

STATE POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, In His §

In His Individual and Official Capacities, §

BEXAR COUNTY MAGISTRATE, In Their §

Individual and Official Capacities, §

KIRBY POLICE DEPARTMENT and §

LEON VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, §

Jointly and Severally, §

§

Defendants. §

__________________________________ §

ORDER

ON THIS DAY came on to be considered Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and

OFFICERS JIM WELLS, ANDERSON, SAUCEDO and J. VASQUEZ’ Amended Motion to Dismiss, 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court after having considered 

the Motion finds said Motion to be meritorious; 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 8-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 2
IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and

OFFICERS JIM WELLS, ANDERSON, SAUCEDO and J. VASQUEZ’ Amended Motion to Dismiss be in 

all things GRANTED. 

SIGNED this _____ day of ____________________, 2020. 

_________________________________________ 

JASON K. PULLIUM 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 8-1 Filed 07/06/20 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 6 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 7 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 8 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 9 of 10
Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 10 of 10
Exhibit 21.1



List of Subsidiaries

|                                    |  |                                           
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                                |  | Domestic orForeign Countryof Incorporation
|American Seafoods International LLC |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|The Hadley Group LLC                |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|New Bedford Seafoods LLC            |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|American Seafoods Processing LLC    |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|Southern Pride Catfish LLC          |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|Southern Pride Trucking, Inc.       |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|American Seafoods Company LLC       |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|American Challenger LLC             |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|American Triumph LLC                |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|American Dynasty LLC                |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|Katie Ann LLC                       |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|Northern Eagle LLC                  |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|Northern Hawk LLC                   |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|Northern Jaeger LLC                 |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|Ocean Rover LLC                     |  | Delaware                                  
|                                    | 
|American Seafoods Japan Ltd.        |  | Japan                                     
|                                    | 
|Pacific Longline Company LLC        |  | Washington                                
|                                    | 
|Lilli Ann LLC                       |  | Washington                                
|                                    | 
|Deep Pacific LLC                    |  | Washington                                
|                                    | 
|North Cape Fisheries LLC            |  | Washington                                
|                                    | 
|American Seafoods Finance, Inc.     |  | Delaware
#### STOKES v. STATE.

No. 26323.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 25, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellánt, having waived a trial by jury, pleaded guilty before the court. . The court, after hearing evidence, adjudged him to be guilty of burglary and assessed his punishment at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of' which nothing is presented for review.

The .judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
ORDER

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0388

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM EUGENE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

The State of Montana has asked this Court to allow Ms. Lauren Amongero

to practice before this Court in this case pursuant to the Montana Student Practice 

Rule, subject to the restrictions of the Rule.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lauren Amongero shall be allowed to 

practice before this Court in the above-entitled matter under and subject to the 

restrictions of the Montana Student Practice Rule. The Clerk is directed to provide 

copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 1 2020

07/01/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0388
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elde r, Kelsey and McClanahan Argued by teleconference

LATOYA R. GREEN MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2774-04-4 BY JUDGE D. ARTHUR KELSEY JULY 19, 2005 FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael P. McWeeny, Judge Mark Bodner for appellant. Dennis R. Bates, Senior Assi stant County Attorney (David P. Bobzien, County Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy County Attorney; Sarah W. Townes, Assistant County Attorney, on brief), for appellee. Edward V. O’Connor, Jr., Guardian ad litem for minor child.

Latoya R. Green appeals the decision of th e trial court denying her motion to vacate an order terminating her residual parental rights. No written motion to vacate, however, appears in the trial court record. Nor does any transcript or statement of facts record an oral motion being made. The trial court record, therefore, disc loses nothing about the grounds for the motion to vacate, the testimony (if any) offered in support of it, or the trial court’ s reasoning for denying it. Suffice it to say, we can hardly begin the ta sk of appellate revi ew with so little knowledge of what it is we are reviewing. “When the appellant fails to en sure that the record contains transcripts or a written statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error affected by su ch omission shall not be considered.” Rule

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.- 2 - 5A:8(b). “An appellate court must dispose of the case upon the record and cannot base its decision upon appellant’s petition or brief, or statements of counsel in open court.” Jackson v.

Commonwealth , 44 Va. App. 218, 224, 604 S.E.2d 122, 125 (2004) (quoting Smith v.

Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993)). “We may act only upon facts

contained in the record.” Id. To be sure, the “importance of the record is obvious, for it is axiomatic that an appellate cour t’s review of the case is limited to the record on appeal.” Turner

v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 96, 99, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986). 1 There being no record of the motion to vacate or the basis for the trial court’s denial of it, we affirm based upon the presumption of correct ness that attends every lower court decision reviewed on appeal.

Affirmed.

1 Green asks us to exempt her case from thes e default principles. We decline to do so. Few principles of appellate review are better known or more consistently applied by Virginia courts. See , e.g. , Commonwealth v. Williams , 262 Va. 661, 669, 553 S.E.2d 760, 764 (2001); Justis v. Young , 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961); Riddick v. Commonwealth , 135 Va. 724, 726, 115 S.E. 523, 524 (1923); Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Marine Res. Comm’n , 45 Va. App. 208, 214 n.4, 609 S.E.2d 619, 622 n.4 (2005); Anderson v. Commonwealth , 13 Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Jenkins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , 12 Va. App. 1178, 1185, 409 S.E.2d 16, 20 (1991).