alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. KRISTOPHER OWEN DANIELS Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 7:14

- cr - 00105

- FL

- 1 ; 7:19

- cv - 00015

- FL )

Submitted : May 19, 2023 Decided: May 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kristopher Owen Daniels , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6096 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Kristopher Owen Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Daniel s ’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the d enial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circ uit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When the district c ourt denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims d ebatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U .S. 134,
140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Daniels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Daniel s’ motion for bail or release pending appeal, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6096 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 64 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 64

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 16, 2009

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing 
Appropriations Resolution, 2010 (division B of Public Law 111-68) is 
further amended by

              

 striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting ``December 
23, 2009''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18

- 639 V

Filed: April 12, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

MELISSA K. WOINAROWICZ

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Richard H. Moeller, Moore, Heffernan, et al., Sioux City, IA , for petitioner.

Lisa Ann Watts , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On May 4, 2018

, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the “Vaccine

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a right shoulder injury related to vaccine

administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) due to an influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine administered on September

22, 2017 . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the

Office of Special Masters.

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasio n of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in

accordance with the E

- Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services).

2 N ational Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).On April 11, 2019

, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner suffered a SI RVA as defined by

the Vaccine Injury Table

. Id. at 4 . Respondent further agrees that petitioner has

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act

. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
#### BIGGS v. RED BLUFF WATER POWER CONTROL DIST.

No. 3907.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

June 29, 1939.

Rehearing Denied July 17, 1939.

*275A. T. Folsom, of Wink, for appellant.

James H. Starley, of Monahans, and Hill D. Hudson, of Pecos, for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice

(after stating the case as above).

Appellant asserts the plaintiff’s petition is insufficient to entitle it to the injunctive relief sought because the allegations of irreparable damage and inadequacy of any legal remedy are general and do not allege any specific facts supporting such general allegations. That the petition is also insufficient because it does not negative the existence of facts which would defeat plaintiff’s right to the injunctive relief sought.

The authorities cited by appellant in this connection need not be discussed further than to say they are cases where injunc-tive relief was invoked upon equitable grounds. Subsection 4 of the Acts of the Forty-fourth Legislature (Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 7652a, subsec. 4), above referred to, confers upon water improvement districts the remedy of injunction to enforce the provisions of the Act and the lawful and reasonable rules and regulations provided for in the Act.

*276It is thus apparent the injunctive relief sought by the appellee is authorized by statute and does not depend upon equitable principles, and the rules of pleading applying in injunction suits based upon equitable considerations are inapplicable. Under the statute and the facts alleged in the petition, the Court properly granted the injunctive relief which it ordered. Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Ass’n v. Stovall, 113 Tex. 273, 253 S.W. 1101;

It is also assigned as error the petition is insufficient because it shows the suit is for the purpose of exacting illegal tolls and fees. We do not so construe the petition. The object of the suit is to prevent appellant from trespassing upon and using plaintiff’s property without its consent.

Appellant’s next and last assignment asserts the Court erred in granting the temporary injunction because the facts alleged show only “a nominal or technical trespass, so trivial that it will not be considered by a Court of equity.” As heretofore stated, the plaintiff’s right to injunc-tive relief does not depend upon equitable considerations but upon the said Act of the Forty-fourth Legislature in subsection 4 thereof.

The petition alleges a previous trespass by appellant upon plaintiff’s property and that appellant threatens to continue and will continue to go upon and use plaintiff’s premises. Under the statute plaintiff is entitled to the injunctive relief granted by the Court.

Upon the record here presented the order appealed from should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Plaintiff

Defendant

v.

Civil Action No.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

(This form also satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 and LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e), LR 7.4, LR 81.1(a)(4)(D), and LR 81.2,

provides the following information:

For a nongovernmental corporate party, the name(s) of its parent corporation and any 

publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock (if none, state "None"): 

*Please separate names with a comma. Only text visible within box will print.

A complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, 

guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are 

financially interested in the outcome of the case: 

*Please separate names with a comma. Only text visible within box will print.

Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor U.S. Department of Education, et al. 4:22-cv-908

Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor

None

Myra Brown, Alexander Taylor

Case 4:22-cv-00908-P Document 2 Filed 10/10/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 18
Date:

Signature:

Print Name:

Telephone:

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Bar Number:

Fax:

E-Mail:

NOTE: To electronically file this document, you will find the event in our Case Management (CM/ECF) system, under Civil => Other 

Documents => Certificate of Interested Persons/Disclosure Statement.

October 10, 2022 /s/ James F. Hasson James F. Hasson Texas Bar 24109982 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700 Arlington, VA, 22209 (703) 243-9423 (703) 243-9423 james@consovoymccarthy.com

Case 4:22-cv-00908-P Document 2 Filed 10/10/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 19
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 12, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 12, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0502. DON FAIRCLOTH v. NATHAN DEAL, GOVERNOR et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2015CV266412
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1934 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1934

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To prevent catastrophic failure or shutdown of remote diesel power 
    engines due to emission control devices, 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 ``Alaska Remote Generator Reliability 
and Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF REGULATIONS REQUIRED.

    (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency shall revise section 60.4216(c) of title 40, Code of Federal 
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), by 
striking ``that was not certified'' and all that follows through 
``compared to engine-out emissions'' and inserting ``must have that 
engine certified as meeting at least Tier 3 PM standards''.
    (b) Emissions and Energy Reliability Study.--Not later than 1 year 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Energy, shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives a report assessing options for the Federal Government 
to assist remote areas in the State of Alaska in meeting the energy 
needs of those areas in an affordable and reliable manner using--
            (1) existing emissions control technology; or
            (2) other technology that achieves emissions reductions 
        similar to the technology described in paragraph (1).

            Passed the Senate December 4, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1934

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To prevent catastrophic failure or shutdown of remote diesel power 
    engines due to emission control devices, and for other purposes.
```
BEFORETHEDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATIONWASHINGTON,D.C.)Applicationof))EGYPTAIR))DocketDOT-OST-2008-0383)foranExemptionpursuantto49U.S.C.§40109)(U.S.-EgyptCode-Share))APPLICATIONOFEGYPTAIRFORRENEWALOFEXEMPTIONAUTHORITYCommunicationsconcerningthisdocumentmaybeservedupon:ChristopherCarisenCLYDE&CO.USLLP405LexingtonAvenueNewYork,NY10174Phone:212-710-3930Email:Christopher.Carlsen@clydeco.usCounselforEgyptAirDated:April1,2010NOTICE:AnswerstothisApplicationaredueonorbeforeApril16,2010.Copiesofsuchanswersshouldbeservedupontheundersignedandallpersonsontheattachedservicelist.BEFORETHEDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATIONWASHINGTON,D.C.)Applicationof))EGYPTAIR))DocketDOT-OST-2008-0383)foranExemptionpursuantto49U.S.C.§40109)(U.S.-EgyptCode-Share))DATED:April1,2010APPLICATIONOFEGYPTAIRFORRENEWALOFEXEMPTIONAUTHORITYPursuantto49U.S.C.§40109,EgyptAirherebyappliesforrenewalofitsexemptionauthoritygrantedbytheDepartmentintheNoticeofActionTakendatedApril2,2009intheabove-referenceddocket.ThisauthoritypermitsEgyptAirtoprovidescheduledforeignairtransportationofpersons,propertyandmailbetweenpointsinEgypt,ontheonehand,andChicago,IL,LosAngeles,CA,SanFrancisco,CA,andWashington,DC,ontheotherhand,viatheUnitedKingdomandNewYorkCity,underitscode-arrangementwithUnitedAirLines,Inc.(“United”)andisscheduledtoexpireonApril2,2010.Bythistimelyfiledapplication,EgyptAirrequeststhattheDepartmentrenewitsexemptionauthorityforaminimumperiodoftwoyears,subjecttotheDepartment’susualconditions.EgyptAirinvokesandreliesupontheapplicableprovisionsoftheAdministrativeProceduresAct(5U.S.C.§558(c)),asimplementedbyPart377oftheDepartment’sSpecialRegulations,tocontinueineffectitsexistingexemptionauthoritypendingfinalactiononthisrenewalapplication.ApplicationofEgyptAirPage2Insupportofitsapplication,EgyptAirsubmitsthatrenewalofEgyptAir’sU.S.-Egyptexemptionauthorityisinthepublicinterest:EgyptAir’scodesharewithUnitedisfullyconsistentwiththeU.S.-EgyptAirServicesAgreement,asamended,andrenewalofEgyptAir’sexemptionwouldensurethecontinuationofcompetitiveonlineserviceforconsumersofU.S.-Egyptairservices.WHEREFORE,EgyptAirrespectfullyrequeststheDepartmenttorenewitsexemptionauthoritydescribedaboveforaminimumperiodoftwoyearsandgrantsuchotherandfurtherreliefastheDepartmentdeemsappropriate.ChristopherCarlsenCLYDE&CO.USLLP405LexingtonAvenueNewYork,NY10174Phone:212-710-3930Email:Christopher.Car1senclydeco.usCounselforEgyptAirCERTIFICATEOFSERVICEIherebycertifythatIhavethisdateservedacopyoftheforegoingdocumentonallpersonsnamedbelowbycausingacopytobesentviaemail:byerlyjr(state.goviim.ba1loughfaa.govcarl.nelson@aa.comkevin.montgomery(polaraircargo.comcharters(evergreenairIines.comm1bengezsrlaw.comdvaughan(kelleydrye.comnssparks@fedex.comhkamen@coair.comrpommer@atlasair.comhowardkass@usairways.comsascha.vanderbellen@delta.comJulie.oettinger(united.comDated:April1,2010
MEMORANDUM DATE: December 1, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR–2013-0602 FROM: Melanie King, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards SUBJECT: November 18, 2014 Meeting and Tribal Consultation with Ak-C hin Indian Community Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY A meeting was held between EPA and the atte ndee(s) listed below on November 18, 2014, to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan Supplementa l Proposal for Existing Power Plants in Indian Country and U.S. Territories. The Clean Power Pl an Supplemental Proposal was issued on October 28, 2014, and published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2014. ATTENDEES Ak-Chin Indian Community  Robert F. Palmquist, Strickland & Strickland – AK-Chin Indian Comm unity General Counsel  Robert Miguel, AK-Chin Indian Community – Council Member US Bureau of Reclamation  Sandra Eto EPA  William Niebling, OAR  Greg Green, OAR/OAQPS  Laura McKelvey, OAR/OAQPS  Melanie King, OAR/OAQPS  Mary Johnson, OAR/OAQPS (by phone)  Amy Zimpfer, Region 9  Anita Lee, Region 9  Colleen McKaughan, Region 9  Laura Farris, Region 8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY  BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,999
<SECURITIES>                                    39,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,035
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,706
<PP&E>                                          16,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,062
<SALES>                                         51,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,296
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,568)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,469)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.80)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION***     In connection with the Quarterly Report of AirNet Systems, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Joel E. Biggerstaff, Chairman of theBoard, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Gary W. Qualmann, Chief Financial Officer,Treasurer and Secretary, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of their knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCorporation and its subsidiaries.            /s/ Joel E. Biggerstaff        /s/ Gary W. Qualmann         Joel E. Biggerstaff   Gary W. Qualmann  Chairman of the Board, ChiefExecutive Officer and President   Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer andSecretary         Dated:November 21, 2005   Dated: November 21, 2005   * This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certificationshall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Corporation specificallyincorporates it by reference.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6353

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ABDULA F. GORDON, a/k/a Bee, a/k/a Ricky

Gordons, a/k/a Rass,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-91-118-JH, CA-95-70-HNM)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 19, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdula F. Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Gordon, Nos. CR-91-118-JH; CA-95-70-HNM (D.

Md. Jan. 12, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL

338568 (U.S. June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). Additionally, we deny

Appellant's motion to appoint counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### SNOW v. STATE.

No. 20936.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 27, 1940.

M. E. Gates, of Huntsville, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for theft of property over the value of $50; punishment assessed *553is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of six years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. The indictment is sufficient to charge the offense and procedural matters appear to be in due order.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.