alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by

designation. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 93-7372

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

_________________________ (April 8, 1994)

Before SMITH and BARKSD ALE, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, * District Judge.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Jose Martinez appeals the district court's denial of his

motion to change the post-imprisonment portion of his sentence from

a special parole term to supervised release. Finding no error, we

affirm.

I.2

Martinez pleaded guilty in April 1988 to possession with

intent to distribute approximately fifteen kilograms of marihuana,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). He received

a sentence of four years' confinement, a four-year special parole

term, and a special assessment of $50.

In February 1993, following his release f rom prison,

Martinez's superv ising probation officer issued a probable cause

warrant for Martinez's arrest based upon a belief that Martinez had

violated his parole. Martinez surrendered and was imprisoned in

March 1993 for violating parole.

Martinez moved to correct his sentence, arguing that he should

have received a term of supervised release under § 1002 of the

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 ("ADAA"), and Gozlon-Peretz v. United

States

, 498 U.S. 395 (1991). The district court denied the motion

as the statute under which Martinez was convicted, 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(b)(1)(D), was not governed by § 1002.

II.

Martinez argue s that, under the reasoning of G ozlon-Peretz

,

§ 1002 designates offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) as having

supervised release. We review the motion to correct sentence under

F ED

. R. C RIM

. P. 35 for gross abuse of discretion. U nited States v.

Hanyard , 762 F.2d 1226, 1228 (5th Cir. 1985).

The issue in this case is not the effectiv e date of § 1002,

see Gozlon-Peretz

, 498 U.S. at 409, but whether the offense in this

case was designated as an offense requiring supervised release3

under § 1002. We conclude that it was not. Section 1002

redesignated § 841(b)(1)(C) as § 841(b)(1)(D) and amended

§ 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(C) to reflect t erms of

supervised release instead of special parole. The special parole

term in § 841(b)(1)(D) remained unaffected until November 1, 1987,

when it was amended by § 1004 of the ADAA. G ozlon-Peretz

, 498 U.S.

at 406 n.10. Since Martinez's offense occurred in March 1987, the

district court correctly denied his motion to replace his special

parole term with a term of supervised release.

AFFIRMED.
#### Charles P. Akin *et al.,*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Randal *C.*Geiger *et al.,*defendants in error.

When A. died, leaving a will, in which he devised to his widow a certain parcel of land, and to his minor daughter a certain other parcel, and afterwards the widow had a homestead set apart to her and the minor ‘daughter out of this same land:

*408
      *Held,*that this was not an election not to take under the will, and her devise did not, on her intermarriage with a second husband, go to all the children of her first husband, as a determined homestead.

Wills. Election. Homestead. Before Judge Hall. Jasper Superior Court. August Adjourned Term, 1873.

A report of the facts of this case is unnecessary to an understanding of the principle embraced in the opinion.

C. L. Bartlett, for plaintiffs in error.

Clarke & Pace; E. Jordan, for defendants.

McCay, Judge.

We see no error in the judgment sustaining *the*demurrer. The homestead is only an exemption of the property from the debts of the intestate, and the only effect of having the specific land covered by the devise set off as a homestead, was to protect it against the debts. It could not affect the heirs any way, unless, by lying still, they permitted it. The marriage of the wife takes from her devise the protection the homestead gave it, and that is all. There was nothing in the laying off' the homestead inconsistent with the will. It rather sought Ho give it effect than to deny it, or any of its provisions.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S  UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000927790
<NAME>                        Union Acceptance Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         116,897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,048)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               272,096
<PP&E>                                           9,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3,226)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,651
<BONDS>                                        295,194
<COMMON>                                        58,360
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405,803
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,481
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,534
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,292
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,242
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,242
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7696
CHARLES C. RAMSEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-664-7) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles C. Ramsey, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Walter Kilgore, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles C. Ramsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramsey has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 2003 WL 431659 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 21, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 14, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 720 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-400, K2025-398.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27212 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
consent.htm


Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 40 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 033-27783) pertaining to Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 41, and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 7, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H.







                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


 


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


October 27, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6358

ANTHONY WRIGHT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN KENNETH LASSITER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:13-hc-02064-BO)

Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2013-NM-066-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

68) IV-C-34 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:54 AM Sheet 68 of 232 
P.2 

V 

N J * _ * * 

2jgs 

? 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL.PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JANM * 1368 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Bill Hefner 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Hefner: 

Thank you for passing along the comments of the Davie Oil 

Company concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling 

emission controls. Be assured that their comments will be 

considered in the next phase of our rulemaking. We will also, 

be placing them in the public docket for the Rulemaking. 

Thank you again for your concern in this matter. 

Sincerely 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11
# Official Journal C 410/1 De

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 410 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 601 December 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 410

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 601 December 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 410/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2017 to 31 October 2017(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2017/C 410/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2017 to 31 October 2017(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 410/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2017 to 31 October 2017(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2017/C 410/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2017 to 31 October 2017(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

5

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit
23.1







Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos.
333-122609, 333-136355 and 333-163004 on Form S-8 of Emtec, Inc. of our report
dated November 25, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
of Emtec, Inc. for year ended August 31, 2009, included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended August 31, 2009.









/s/ McGladrey &
      Pullen, LLP




Blue
Bell, Pennsylvania


November
25, 2009
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Joint Application of 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and 

 SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE, et al.

for statements of authorization pursuant to 

14 C.F.R. 212 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket OST-2000-6939 

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARING 

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to: 

Jean-Michel Barthelemy, Vice President – 

 European and International Affairs 

SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE 

45, rue de Paris 

F-95747, Roissy CDG Cedex 

Paris, France 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director – Government Affairs 

 & Associate General Counsel 

Jeff Morgan 

Regional Director – Government Affairs 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 

1212 New York Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 842-4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

June 2, 2011
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Joint Application of 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and 

 SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE, et al.

for statements of authorization pursuant to 

14 C.F.R. 212 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket OST-2000-6939 

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL CODESHARING 

Pursuant to the blanket statements of authorization granted to Delta Air Lines, 

Inc. (“Delta”), Société Air France (“Air France”), and their respective affiliates, the 

carriers hereby notify the Department that, on or after 30 days from today, Delta’s “DL” 

designator code will be displayed on flights operated by Air France between Miami, 

Florida (MIA) and Port-au-Prince, Haiti (PAP). 

Respectfully submitted, 

______________________ 

Jean-Michel Barthelemy, Vice President – 

European and International Affairs 

SOCIÉTÉ AIR FRANCE 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director, Government Affairs & 

Associate General Counsel 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 A copy of the foregoing Notice has been served this 2nd day of June, 2011, upon 

the following persons via email: 

carl.nelson@aa.com; jeffrey.manley@united.com; dan.weiss@coair.com; 

howard.kass@usairways.com; benjamin.slocum@usairways.com; 

esta.rosenberg@dot.gov; brian.hedberg@dot.gov; info@airlineinfo.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000927790
<NAME>                        Union Acceptance Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         24,802
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  275,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,648)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               298,118
<PP&E>                                         15,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,196)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 557,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          42,818
<BONDS>                                        401,394
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       58,632
<OTHER-SE>                                     54,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   557,689
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,222
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               975
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,776
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,767
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,009
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,009
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.23



</TABLE>