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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6049

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LACEY LEROY MCCLAM, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:07-cr-01277-TLW-1; 4:15-cv-04936-TLW)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as 

successive and denying reconsideration. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). 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 motion 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 

McClam 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128990 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128990 COA: 260526 Hillsdale CC: 03-280192-FH KEISHA DAWN JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the May 26, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 81549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23165]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JOINT BOARD FOR THE ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES


Renewal of Charter of Advisory Committee on Actuarial 
Examinations

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries announces the 
renewal of the charter of the Advisory Committee on Actuarial 
Examinations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Van Osten, at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a6f4643504b484f5e420440045c4b4445595e4f446a435859044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a1f3633203b383f2e327430742c3b3435292e3f341a332829743d352c">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-317-3648.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Advisory Committee on 
Actuarial Examinations (Advisory Committee) is to advise the Joint 
Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint Board) on examinations in 
actuarial mathematics and methodology. The Joint Board administers such 
examinations in discharging its statutory mandate to enroll individuals 
who wish to perform actuarial services with respect to pension plans 
subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The 
Advisory Committee's functions include, but are not necessarily limited 
to, considering and recommending examination topics; developing 
examination questions; recommending proposed examinations; reviewing 
examination results and recommending pass marks; and as requested by 
the Joint Board, making recommendations relative to the examination 
program.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)

    Dated: October 2, 2024.
Joleah M. White,
Chair, Joint Board for the Enrollmentof Actuaries.
[FR Doc. 2024-23165 Filed 10-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Civil Service 

Retirement 

System 

Federal Employees’ 

Group Life 

Insurance Program 

Federal Employees 

Health Benefits 

Program 

Federal Employees 

Retirement 

System 

Federal 

Long Term 

Care Insurance 

Program 

United States 

Office of 

Personnel Management 

The Federal Government’s Human Resources Agency

Retirement and Insurance Service 

Benefits Administration Letter 

Number: 02-305 Date: February 15, 2002 

Subject: March 2002 Headcount 

This letter is the call for your semiannual Headcount for March 2002 reporting. The Headcount is reported 

semiannually (March and September) by all payroll offices that withhold monies from salaries for 

participants in the Civil Service Retirement System, Federal Employees Retirement System, Federal 

Employees Health Benefits Program, and/or the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Programs. 

The March 2002 Headcount will be for the payroll paid during the FIRST 15 DAYS of March 2002. If you 

pay twice during the first 15 days of March, the Headcount will be for the first payroll paid during that 

period. For example, if you pay your employees on March 1st and March 15th, the first payroll paid will be 

used for your Headcount (March 1st). For monthly pay cycles, the reporting period will be February 1, 

2002 through February 28, 2002. 

The March 2002 Headcount must be submitted no later than March 19, 2002. We ask that you notify us if 

you anticipate delays or difficulties in submitting it by that date. Under no circumstances, however, should 

you delay transmitting your normal RITS report because your Headcount is not ready to be submitted. 

We would prefer that you FAX your OPM Form 1523 and SF 2812-A to us. If you are one of the few 

remaining payroll offices that still report withholdings and contributions via the hard copy SF 2812, please 

FAX a copy of your SF 2812 to us with your OPM Form 1523 and SF 2812-A. Please use CLEAR 

originals to ensure that we receive legible copies. Our FAX number for Headcount submission is 

202-606-0701. 

If you have any questions concerning the preparation of your Headcount report, please call our Funds 

Management Branch at 202-606-4118. 

 Robert A. Yuran, Chief 

 Financial Policy Staff
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7050

KIRK DEANGELO EVANS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RAY COOPER; THEODIS BECK,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-267)

Submitted: September 15, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kirk Deangelo Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kirk Deangelo Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Evans 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 before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
**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 Limco-Piedmont Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shabtai
      Moshiashvili, 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 and belief:




(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/
                Shabtai Moshiashvili*Chief
                Financial Officer




November
      12, 2007





*
 
      The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
      Sponsor’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon
      request.
#### William Charles COURSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 20749.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 11, 1939.

McConnell & Winters, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is driving an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50 and confinement in jail for five days.

Upon the written request of appellant, duly verified by his affidavit, the appeal is dismissed.

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.
##### 



EXHIBIT
12
 SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Six Months EndedYear Ended December 31,
    
    
    June 30,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006(In millions, except ratio)EarningsPre-tax income from continuing
operations
    
    $
    263
    
    
    $
    248
    
    
    $
    243
    
    
    $
    212
    
    
    $
    217
    
    
    $
    163
    
    
    $
    128Adjusted for:Income from equity investees
    
    
    (78
    )
    
    
    (80
    )
    
    
    (78
    )
    
    
    (55
    )
    
    
    (55
    )
    
    
    (51
    )
    
    
    (36
    )Pre-tax income from continuing
operations before income from
equity investees
    
    
    185
    
    
    
    168
    
    
    
    165
    
    
    
    157
    
    
    
    162
    
    
    
    112
    
    
    
    92Fixed charges
    
    
    98
    
    
    
    99
    
    
    
    98
    
    
    
    91
    
    
    
    60
    
    
    
    47
    
    
    
    48Distributed income of equity
investees
    
    
    80
    
    
    
    125
    
    
    
    70
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    76
    
    
    
    31Capitalized interest
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    (5
    )
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    (1
    )Total earnings available
for fixed charges
    
    $
    360
    
    
    $
    387
    
    
    $
    330
    
    
    $
    246
    
    
    $
    220
    
    
    $
    232
    
    
    $
    170Fixed chargesInterest and
debt costs
    
    $
    97
    
    
    $
    98
    
    
    $
    97
    
    
    $
    90
    
    
    $
    59
    
    
    $
    46
    
    
    $
    48Interest component of rent
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    Total fixed charges
    
    $
    98
    
    
    $
    99
    
    
    $
    98
    
    
    $
    91
    
    
    $
    60
    
    
    $
    47
    
    
    $
    48Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    3.67x
    
    
    
    3.91x
    
    
    
    3.37x
    
    
    
    2.70x
    
    
    
    3.67x
    
    
    
    4.94x
    
    
    
    3.54x
CERTIFICATION FOR FOSTER CHILDREN

I have been informed of the following requirements for coverage of a foster child under the 

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: 

1. The child must be under age 26. (If the child is age 26 or older, he/she can only be 

covered if he/she is incapable of self-support because of a disabling condition that began 

before age 26. I must provide documentation of this to my employing office.); 

2. The child must currently live with me; 

3. I must currently be the primary source of financial support for the child; 

4. The parent-child relationship must be with me, not with the biological parent. This 

 means that I exercise parental authority, responsibility, and control. I care for, 

 support, discipline, and guide the child. I make the decisions about the child's 

 education and health care; and 

5. I must expect to raise the child into adulthood. 

I understand that if this child moves out of my home to live with a biological parent, he/she loses 

coverage and cannot ever again be covered as a foster child unless the biological parent dies, is 

imprisoned, or becomes incapable of caring for the child due to a disability, or unless I obtain a 

court order taking parental responsibility away from the biological parent. 

This is to certify that: ____________________ (name of child) lives with me; I am the primary 

source of financial support for this child; I have a regular parent-child relationship with this 

child, as described above; and I intend to raise this child into adulthood. 

I have provided my employing agency proof of my regular and substantial support for 

__________________________ (name of child). 

I will immediately notify both my employing office and the health benefits carrier if this child 

moves out of my home or ceases to be financially dependent on me. 

_____________________________ ______________________ 

Print name of enrollee Social Security Number 

____________________________ _______________________ 

Enrollee signature Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6725

DJOUDI DJADI,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-

3446-AMD)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Lawrence Gitomer, CARDIN & GITOMER, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellant. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David

Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant 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. Djadi v. Warden, No. CA-97-3446-AMD (D. Md.

Apr. 30, 1998). 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
Page 161 is not included in this copy. 

Pages through are not included in this copy. 

_______________________________________________________________ 

The material not included contains the following type of 

information: 

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients. 

_____ Identity of product impurities. 

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process. 

_____ Description of quality control procedures. 

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

__X___ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

_____ FIFRA registration data. 

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______. 

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical 

 composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source 

 of the ingredient. 

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege. 

_____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the 

 Agency. 

_____ Internal Deliberative Information. 

 

 

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product 

registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who 

prepared the response to your request. 

_________________________________________________________________ 


Page is not included in this copy. 

Pages 164 through 171 are not included in this 

copy. 

_______________________________________________________________ 

The material not included contains the following type of 

information: 

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients. 

_____ Identity of product impurities. 

_____ Description of the product manufacturing process. 

_____ Description of quality control procedures. 

_____ Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

__X___ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

_____ FIFRA registration data. 

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______. 

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

_____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical 

 composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source 

 of the ingredient. 

_____ Attorney-Client Privilege. 

_____ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the 

 Agency. 

_____ Internal Deliberative Information. 

 

 

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product 

registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who 

prepared the response to your request. 

_________________________________________________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3552 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3552

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide equitable 
 treatment for residents of Puerto Rico with respect to the refundable 
                    portion of the child tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2015

Mr. Pierluisi introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide equitable 
 treatment for residents of Puerto Rico with respect to the refundable 
                    portion of the child tax credit.

    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 ``Child Tax Credit Equity for Puerto 
Rico Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR RESIDENTS OF PUERTO RICO WITH RESPECT 
              TO THE REFUNDABLE PORTION OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 24(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by inserting ``or section 933'' after ``section 112''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```