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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1380

KEN GRYDER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CONCEPT PLUS, LLC; MARK HERRING; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT 

COMMISSION; ADP TOTALSOURCE,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00261-LMB-MSN)

Submitted: October 19, 2021 Decided: October 21, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ken Gryder, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Brian Hardie, Joseph Erwin Schuler, JACKSON 

LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ken Gryder appeals the district court’s order dismissing, without prejudice,

*

Gryder’s complaint alleging, in part, that Defendants violated federal whistleblower 

protection statutes. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gryder v. Concept 

Plus, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00261-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2021). 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.

AFFIRMED

* Because Gryder cannot save his action by merely amending his complaint, 

the order dismissing the complaint without prejudice is final and appealable. See Martin 

v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2017).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28482]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of the Public Debt


Proposed Collection: Comment Request

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general 
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment 
on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the 
Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the 
Special Bond of Indemnity to the United States of America.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 11, 
2001, to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, 
Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. 
Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 
26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Special Bond of Indemnity to the United States of America.
    OMB Number: 1535-0062.
    Form Number: PD F 2966.
    Abstract: The information is requested to support a request for 
refund of the purchase price of savings bonds purchased in a chain 
letter scheme.
    Current Actions: None.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Affected Public: Individuals.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Estimated Time Per Respondent: 8 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 665.

Request for Comments

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized 
and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will 
become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 
the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance 
of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates 
of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and 
purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: November 1, 2000.
Vicki S. Thorpe,
Manager, Graphics, Printing and Records Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-28482 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
The Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge 1

for the District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for

final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). 

___________

No. 95-3297

___________

Richard W. Waxler, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Shirley S. Chater, Secretary, * District of North Dakota

Health and Human Services, *

* (UNPUBLISHED)

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 25, 1996

 Filed: May 8, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard W. Waxler appeals from the final judgment of the District

Court for the District of North Dakota affirming the decision of the

1

Commissioner of Social Security to deny Waxler Social Security disability

benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm for the reasons

stated in the magistrate judge's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See

8th Cir. R. 47B. 
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 19-0479

JOHN B. GORDON AND RUTH A.

GORDON

v.

JASON DEMMON AND JUTTA

DEMMON

§

§

§

§

§

§

Bell County,

7th District.

August 2, 2019

Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioners, JOHN B. GORDON AND RUTH A. GORDON, pay

all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 12th day of September, 2019.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
Justin Schofield

2900 SW 155th LN

Davie, FL 33331

Top Notch Site Services LLC

Justins@topnotchss.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I, Justin Schofield on behalf of Top Notch Site Services LLC, am requesting an exemption under 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB 14, 2012, Section 333, to 

operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) commercially to conduct aerial photography, aerial 

video production, marketing, real estate, construction site inspection, and research & 

development.

All operations will be performed with the DJI “Inspire 1” and “Phantom 3”. The Inspire 1 has a 

maximum gross weight of 6.47 pounds. It is equipped with four rotors that are driven by electric 

motors, powered by batteries. The Inspire 1 has a maximum airspeed of 22 m/s. The Phantom 3 

has a maximum gross weight of 2.82 pounds. It is equipped with four rotors that are driven by 

electric motors, powered by batteries. The Phantom 3 has a maximum airspeed of 16 m/s. 

All operations will adhere to the local and state laws regarding UAS operation.

All operations will comply with the criteria of: flights at or below 200 feet to any UAS operator with 

a Section 333 exemption for aircraft that weigh less than 55 pounds, operate during daytime 

Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions, operate within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilots, and 

stay certain distances away from airports or heliports:

5 nautical miles (NM) from an airport having an operational control tower; or

3 NM from an airport with a published instrument flight procedure, but not an operational tower; or

2 NM from an airport without a published instrument flight procedure or an operational tower; or

2 NM from a heliport with a published instrument flight procedure

Safety 

1. UAS will be inspected before and after every flight to ensure safe operation

2. UAS will be operated within the operator’s line of site

3. UAS will not be flown with low visibility or adverse weather conditions

4. UAS will not be flown over the traveling public 

5. UAS batteries will be fully charged before use 

6. UAS will discontinue flight once batteries have reached 20% of charge capacity

7. UAS is equipped with a “return to home” feature if GPS signal is lost

8. UAS will not be flown with out a GPS signal

9. Operator will check for any on ground or above ground hazards prior to flight

10. Operator will be trained and well versed in the safety in operation of the UAS prior to 

flight

11. Regular logs will be kept to record all flights.

Thank	you	for	your	time	and	consideration	for	this	request	of	exemption.	If	any	other	items	

need	to	be	addressed	or	amended,	we	will	be	happy	to	work	with	your	office.	We	look	forward	

to	hearing	from	you.	

Sincerely,	

Justin	Schofield
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as ) 

Attorney General of Texas, )

DAVID SCHNITZ, )

TRACY MARTIN, and )

FLOICE ALLEN, )

Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00143-P

 ) 

vs. )

 ) 

MARVIN M. DETTELBACH, in his ) 

official Capacity as Acting Director, Bureau of )

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, )

and )

MERRICK B. GARLAND, in his official )

Capacity as Attorney General of the ) 

United States, ) 

Defendants. ) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ motion 

for summary judgment is hereby DENIED. The Court’s final judgment shall issue separately. 

SO ORDERED on this ____day of _________________, 2023. 

____________________________________ 

 MARK PITTMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

Case 4:22-cv-00143-P Document 53-1 Filed 03/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 939
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                  OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                               25,335
<SECURITIES>                                                         13,544
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         1,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     40,333
<PP&E>                                                                  271
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       40,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 2,076
<BONDS>                                                                 114
<COMMON>                                                                  7
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                                           37,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         40,611
<SALES>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      2,665
<CGS>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       1,222
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   1,222
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          1,222
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          0.16
        

</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL 

ACTION, INC., et al.,

§

§

§

 Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00209-O

§

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al., §

§

 Defendants. §

ORDER

On April 13, 2022, the Transportation Security Agency (“TSA”) extended the public 

transportation mask mandate through May 3, 2022.1 The TSA has not renewed the mask mandate. 

In light of the expiration of the mask mandate, the Court ORDERS the parties to file briefs 

addressing (1) whether the case is moot; (2) whether Plaintiffs suffer an injury in fact; and 

(3) whether Plaintiffs suffer irreparable harm. Cross-briefs are due on May 19, 2022, and the 

parties may file replies on May 23.

SO ORDERED on this 13th day of May, 2022.

1 See TSA, TSA extends face mask requirement through May 3, 2022 (Apr. 13, 2022),

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/statements/2022/04/13/tsa-extends-face-mask-requirementthrough-may-3-2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00209-O Document 37 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1142
#### NIVENS v. STATE.

No. 25064.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction was for burglary, punishment assessed at two'years in the penitentiary.

Appellant now'files his personal affidavit advising this court that he does not further desire to "prosecute his appeal, and upon his request the appeal is dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 81589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32783]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday, January 28, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-32783 Filed 12-23-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
* 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. 00-20426 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MELQUIADES ROCHA LEOS, also known as Jose Leos, also known as El Pelon, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-370-2

-------------------- June 1, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Counsel for Melquiades Rocha Leos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Leos has received a copy of counsel's brief and has filed a response. Leos argues that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence under United States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 2D1.1(b)(1) and 3B1.1(b). Leos knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence or the manner in which it was determined.No. 00-20426 -2- See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). This argument is therefore foreclosed. Leos also challenges the indictment, the sentence, and counsel’s performance on the basis of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Jones v. United States , 526 U.S. 227 (1999). There can be no Apprendi or Jones violation because Leos’s sentence was not increased above the statutory maximum of life imprisonment by any of the findings made by the district court at sentencing. United States v. Keith , 230 F.3d 784, 786-87 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1163 (2001). We do not address Leos’s conclusional assertion that counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate the case or prepare for trial. See United States v. Volsken , 766 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1985). Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Leos’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Leos’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00207

- CR

JOSE LUIS ALVAREZ

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 957

- 12

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this ca use on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 13, 2014
OCTOBER TERM, 1666.

#### James Ringgold *against*Anthony Purs.

AT *April*Term, the plaintiff declared against the defendant, that his father did obtain patent for a tract of land containing 1,200 acres, lying on the Eastern Shore in *Talbot*County, and did convey 300 acres of the said land to the plaintiff; that the defendant hath gone and seated on the said land, and cut down much timber, &c. The defendant pleaded *not guilty.*Interrogatories were exhibited to the plaintiff and witnesses. Before all the interrogatories were answered, the Court making inspect tion into the premises, which proved something difficult for the Court to understand the allegations of either party ; whereupon it was ordered, that by the view of a Jury of twelve men of the neighbourhood, and a surveyor, they do return under their hands to the next Provincial Court, a survey of *Anthony Purs’*and *James Ringgold’s*lands, now in dispute, according to the bounds of each patent, and also a plot of each survey. The said land to be laid out by a chain. The case was agreed.
Exhibit 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-52723)  pertaining  to the 1998 Stock Option Plan and the Directors
Stock Option Plan of Cunningham Graphics International, Inc. of our report dated
February  3, 1999 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and
schedule  of  Cunningham  Graphics  International,  Inc.  included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                                            /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Princeton, New Jersey
March 2, 1998
#### MURPHY v. STATE.

No. 25170.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1951.

*806No attorney on appeal.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of murder with malice. His punishment was assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

The only complaint presented by the record is based on the refusal of the court to give an instructed verdict. In the absence of a statement of facts we are not in position to consider the question.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
09129/06

Organization Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association

8040.5

l)ocl<--e-t: fAA-,l01D -0<1'::J 5

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal Jeen discussed?

I

Person Contacted

Eli Corti

Regional Airline Association

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association

AT.-'\.

ATA

Dave Lotterr

Robert Hackman

I

Craig Fabian

1\1Lopez

j2/z~

12)2>;

}Z/Z1

IZJz!!/{/j
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3251 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3251

 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2013

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Sanity Act for 
Appropriations''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is hereby appropriated for 150 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act--
            (1) for each project or activity for which budget authority 
        was provided in the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
        Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), an amount equal to 
        the budget authority provided in such Act, as reduced pursuant 
        to the Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 2013, to 
        remain available for a comparable period of availability; and
            (2) for entitlements and other mandatory payments whose 
        budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts for fiscal 
        year 2013, and for activities under the Food and Nutrition Act 
        of 2008, such amounts as may be necessary to maintain program 
        levels as they existed on September 30, 2013.
                                 <all>
```