alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6189

ANTHONY J. JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, Maryland House of Corrections - Annex; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-1862-AW) Submitted: May 25, 1999 Decided: June 2, 1999 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony J. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on January 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 22, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. Corcoran , No. CA98-1862-AW (D. Md. Jan. 22, 1999). * 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
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|U.S. Refinery Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|U.S. Refinery Shell Storage Capacity as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         | 799,034 | 919,836 | 905,254 | 911,244 | 942,435 | 921,068 | 936,112 | 936,133
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 937,146 | 956,971 | 935,466 | 932,685 | 929,287 | 866,597 | NA      | 842,322 | NA      | 826,893
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 808,254 | 792,151 | 790,880 | 781,929 | 771,876 | 781,375 | 781,862 | 774,705 | 765,593 | 758,619
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 710,413 | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      | --     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --      | --      | --      | --      | --      |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Case 2:22-cr-00073-Z-BR Document 40 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 101
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

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

*Name of Committee:*                         AIDS Research Advisory Committee, NIAID.                    

*Date:*                         January 30, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 am to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         The Committee will provide advice of scientific priorities, policy, and program balance at the Division level. The Committee will review the progress and productivity of ongoing efforts, and identify critical gaps/obstacles to progress.                    

*Place:*                         Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Conference Rooms E1/E2, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rona L. Siskind, Executive Secretary, AIDS Research Advisory Committee, Division of AIDS, NIAID/NIH, Room 4139, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, Bethesda, MD 20892-7601, 301-435-3732.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 6, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-29148 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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 Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
William G. Smith, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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/ William G. Smith CEO
                                --------------------------------------------
                                William G. Smith
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                November 13, 2003

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Smithway  Motor Xpress Corp.  and will be retained by Smithway Motor
Xpress Corp.  and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
United States District Court 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ v. § CRIMINAL ACTION NO, 3:22-CR-00290-S 

§ 

IDUAR ACOSTA FERNANDEZ § (1) 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

AND DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF RIGHT TO OBJECT 

 

The Court referred the Petition for Person Under Supervision [ECF No. 5] to the United 

States Magistrate Judge to “conduct a hearing on the alleged violations” contained within and “to 

make findings and a recommendation for modification, revocation, or termination” of Defendant 

Iduar Acosta Fernandez’s term of supervised release. See Order, ECF No. 19. The Court has 

received the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) of the United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to its order. See ECF No. 30. The Defendant waived his right to object to the 

Recommendation, See id. The Court is of the opinion that the Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge is correct. 

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Recommendation is ADOPTED as the opinion and 

findings of the Court. It is further ORDERED that the Defendant be committed to the custody of 

the Bureau of Prisons for a term of imprisonment of eight months with no further term of 

Supervised Release to follow. 

SO ORDERED. KS Y 

Signed March 26, 2024. 

KAREN GREN SCHOLER 

UNITED 

 

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cr-00290-S Document 31 Filed 03/26/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 146
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 20, 2000, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. § 4301                     *et seq.*                     (“the Act”), J Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Cardsoft, Inc., Mountain View, CA; Centro Ricerche Fiat-CRF, Orbassano, Italy; Enea Realtime AB, Taby, Sweden; Pacific Numerics, San Diego, CA; Mecel AB, Gothenburg, Sweden; Metawave Video Systems, Ltd., Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom; Michael Barr, Silver Spring, MD; William N. Locke, Bethel Park, PA; and Joe Sexton, San Jose, CA have been added as parties to this venture. Also, UK Ministry of Defence, Weymouth, United Kingdom has been dropped as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and J Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On August 9, 1999, J Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 21, 2000 (65 FR 15175).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 21, 2000. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49263).                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-29544  Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Douglas C. Sandvig, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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/ Douglas C. Sandvig
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Douglas C. Sandvig
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        November 14, 2005
#### VARNER v. STATE.

No. 21284.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 4, 1940.

*199Dibrell, Mosheim & Campbell, of Seguin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State."

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

A. J. Varner was convicted by a jury in the county court of Guadalupe County on a charge of obstructing a public road, and was assessed a fine of $25.

The appeal presents several questions, but our attention is attracted first to the condition of the record in that it fails to show that the road alleged was a public road. There is evidence that it had been used by some people a great many years ago, the time being indefinite, but there is also evidence without dispute in the record that the road described, or at least a part of it, was so obstructed by the growth of trees in it and the washing of ditches across it that it was not and could not be used as a public road and had not been for something like twenty years. There is evidence that a part of the road was traversed by individuals whose properties were made accessible by reason of it, but they did so only by crossing what appears to be a part of appellant’s land in order to go around a ditch in the roadway and then by winding among trees and brush the rest of the distance. 'These parties might have used this strip of land by right, or permissively. It is immaterial to the turning point in this case.

When the prosecuting witness interviewed the county commissioner in whose precinct the roadway is situated, he told the witness that he would have to secure a petition to have the road opened. Assuming that the commissioner was correct in his instruction, and the prosecution concurs, it was not a public road at that time. The witness then secured a petition signed by sixty-two people asking the commissioner’s court to open the road. Whether or not this petition meets the requirements of law as a petition to create a public road is also immaterial, because the record does not show that it was ever acted upon. It was filed by the clerk and the court thereupon directed a letter to be written to appellant telling him to remove the alleged obstruction. He did so at the time, but thereafter replaced it. There is no. evidence of any order of the court at. any time ‘which attempts to designate this; as a public road and there is nothing shown in the record whith would make it such.

It is immaterial to discuss the questions raised by the bills of exception.

Because the prosecution fails to show that the road alleged was a public road, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
H. Con. Res. 315 Agreed to October 7, 1994

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Friday, October 7, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the majority

leader, or his designee, in accordance with this concurrent resolution, it stand adjourned until noon on Tuesday, November 29,

1994, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution,

whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate adjourns or

recesses at the close of business on any day from Friday, October

7, 1994 through Friday, October 14, 1994, pursuant to a motion

made by the majority leader, or his designee, in accordance with

this concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until

9 a.m. on Wednesday, November 30, 1994, or such time on that

day as may be specified by the majority leader or his designee

in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second

day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section

3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

SEC. 2. When the House adjourns on the legislative day of

Tuesday, November 29, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the

majority leader, or his designee, in accordance with this concurrent

resolution, it stand adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second

day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section

3 of this concurrent resolution; and that when the Senate adjourns

at the close of business on Thursday, December 1, 1994, it stand

adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after Members

are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent

resolution.

SEC. 3. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader

of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority

leader of the House and the minority leader of the Senate, shall

notify the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively,
H. Con. Res. 315—2

to reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 233 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 233

   Designating the oak as the national arboreal emblem of the United 
                                States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 1993

Mr. Klein introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
           to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Designating the oak as the national arboreal emblem of the United 
                                States.

Whereas the oak has more than 300 species native to North America;
Whereas the oak is grown today in every State;
Whereas the oak represents durability and longevity;
Whereas the fruit of the oak, the acorn, was used as food by early Native 
        Americans;
Whereas in a poll conducted by the International Society of Aboriculture, the 
        oak was selected by a majority of people as the tree that symbolizes the 
        United States;
Whereas the oak is renowned in art, music, and literature; and
Whereas it is fitting and proper that the United States have a national arboreal 
        emblem: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the tree commonly known 
as the oak is designated as the national arboreal emblem of the United 
States, and the President is authorized and requested to issue a 
proclamation announcing that the oak is the national arboreal emblem.

                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barbara Counts, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, *509J.), rendered November 22, 1988, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.