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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

AMOS JUNIOR SCOTT, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:03-cv-00251-LHT) 

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 5, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Amos Junior Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Amos Junior Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, and dismissing it 

on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 

(4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the 

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive 

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the 

record and conclude that Scott has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Scott’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 

340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain 

2 
3 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner 

must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered 

evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that 

would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable 

factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or 

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, 

made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral 

review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). Scott’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion. 

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
Order entered March 22, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01096
- CR
CHARLES EDWARDS SIELOFF , III, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10
- 35795
- P 

### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whet her appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
tr ial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          52,189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  494,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,698
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               538,238
<PP&E>                                       3,813,041
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,766,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,585,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          958,015
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       799,187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,120,378)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,585,552
<SALES>                                        280,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               347,065
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               236,570
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,059
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (111,918)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (111,918)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (111,918)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 20, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00439

- CV

IN RE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On September 9, 2020, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for temporary relief, which this court granted on September 16, 2020. The real party in interest filed a response to which relator replied. We conditionally grant the petiti on for writ of mandamus and order the Honorable Rosie Alvarado to, within fifteen days of this order, vacate the portion of her August 27, 2020 order granting in part the real party in interest’s motion to compel relator to

disclose Jimenez’s medical recor ds. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(c). The writ will issue only in the event we are informed Judge Alvarado has failed to comply with this order.

The stay issued on September 16, 2020 is LIFTED.

It is so ORDERED on January 20, 2021

.

__________________ ___________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of January, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CI10989, styled Jake R. Trevino v. University of Texas at San Antonio

, pending in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Honorable Rosie Alvarado, sitting by assignment, signed the order at issue in this proceeding.
#### Mushrow & Co. *v.*Graham.

*Enoch Sawyer*was the subscribing witness to the bond, and lie was the Collector of imposts for the district of Camden, and his deposition had been taken,and was now offered to be read.

*Per curiam*

It is the common practice to receive, the depositions of all such public officers, the duties of whose offices oblige them to attend at a particular place for the discharge thereof. Let the deposition he read. He proved the execution of the bond by *Graham,*but did not say that *Graham,*the Defendant in this action, was the person who executed it.

*Per curiam*— You may identify the Defendant by proof of his hand-writing. The Plaintiff then proved the handwriting in which the obligor’s name was subscribed, to be (he hand-writing of *Graham*the Defendant, and he had a verdict and judgment.
##### 



Exhibit 13.1 Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Annual Report of SK Telecom Co., Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the
period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), Shin Bae Kim, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Sung Min Ha, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 result of operations of the Company. /s/ Shin Bae KimName:
    Shin Bae KimTitle:
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    May 31, 2005 /s/ Sung Min HaName:
    Sung Min HaTitle:
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    May 31, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
August1,2011U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgencyMailCode:4203MWaterDocket1200PennsylvaniaAve,NWWashington,DC20460Attn:DocketIDNo.EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667DearAdministratorJackson:Iam writing toexpressconcernsabout theU.S.Environmental ProtectionAgency's(EPA)proposed new rule underSection316(b)oftheClean WaterActtoregulatecoolingwater intake structures(CWIS).Unless modified,theproposed rulewillhave unwarrantednegativeeconomic,environmentalandenergyeffectsonmystatewithout producing correspondingbenefits.Theproposed rule would requiremostelectricutilityandmanufacturingfacilitiesthatusecoolingwater tomeetan arrayofnewtechnologycontrolsaswellasnew studying,monitoring,andreportingrequirements.TheCWTSatthesefacilitieshave beenpermittedandmonitoredonasite-by-sitebasisforalmost fortyyears,firstbytheEPA,and,since1995,byFlorida'sDepartmentofEnvironmental Protection(FDEP).Theproposed rule shouldallow a considerationoftheknowledgeandsitespecificinformation gainedfromdecadesofpermittingandmonitoring tobe usedindeterminingneedforadditionalCWIScontrols.Undertheproposedrule,evenfacilitiesthatusecoolingtowersorotherclosedcyclecoolingwithminimalimpingementand entrainmentimpactswouldberequiredtodomore.Theproposedrule redefinesclosed-cycIecoolingtoexclude many coolingponds andothersuchsystemsthathavelongbeenunderstood tomeetthesection316(b)requirements,andthus wouldimposenew costsandrequirementsonthosefacilities.Oneunintendedconsequenceistherule'spotential impactonourbelovedandendangeredmanatees. Heated waterfromtwelveofFlorida'spower plants createswarm-water refugesthat areessentialtomanateesurvivalduringwinter months.TheTHECAPITOLTALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA32399(850)488-2272FAX(850)922-4292HonorableLisaJacksonAugust1,2011Page Twosightofoneoftheseanimalsin itsnaturaIhabitatisamemorableexperience,forbothresidents andvisitorsenjoying Florida'swaterways.ManateesbringmillionsofdollarstoFlorida's economythrough theeco-tourismindustry.Bynotallowing sitespecificconsiderations,theproposedrulecould leadtothereductionordisappearanceofthesewarm-waterrefugesandultimateJythreatenthe recoveryofthemanatees.Inthesedifficulteconomic times,EPAmust ensurethatany newregulationsarenecessary, justifiableandwillproducebenefitsthat areatleast commensuratewith,ifnot greater than,thecostsofcompliance.EPA'sownestimateofthetotal annualizedcostforcompliancewith itsproposed impingement control requirements,aswellasthemyriad permitapplication,monitoring,andreportingrequirements,is$384millionnationally,forwhichEPAestimatesonly$18millioninannualizedbenefits.Theproposedruleneedstoprovidesubstantialflexibilityinevaluatingimpingementandentrainmentateach facility,allowtheuseofsitespecificenvironmentalandcost-benefitinformation,andavoidrequirementsthatarenotfeasible,necessary,orhaveunintendedconsequences.FDEPwillbeprovidingmorespecificcommentsandconcernsontheproposedrule.I encourageEPAto developaflexibleCWISrulethatwillcontinuetoensurestrongenvironmentalprotection,while maintainingeleckicreIiabilityandavoidingunnecessaryrateincreasesforFlorida'selectricitycustomers.Sincerely,RickScottGovernor
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 40882 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE GUADALUPE LOPEZ

- GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:18

- CR

- 495

- 1

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Guadalupe Lopez

- Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez

- Garcia h a s not fil ed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 7, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-40882 Document: 00514946611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2019No. 18

- 40882

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave t o withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-40882 Document: 00514946611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2019
Exhibit 21.1

# DIRECT AND INDIRECT SUBSIDIARIES OF AVAX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

|NOTE: |  | All of the entities listed below are wholly owned direct or
indirect subsidiaries of AVAX Technologies, Inc., except as noted.
|----- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INCORPORATION (DELAWARE)

AVAX International IP Holdings, Inc.

AVAX International Holdings, Inc.

AVAX International Services, Inc.

AVAX America, Inc.

DENMARK OFFSHORE HOLDING COMPANY

AVAX Technologies Holdings ApS

FRENCH ENTITIES

GPH, S.A.

Genopoietic, S.A.

AUSTRALIAN ENTITIES

AVAX Australia Holdings Pty Limited

AVAX Australia Pty Limited (1)

AVAX Australia Manufacturing Pty Limited (1)

|_________________
|-----------------
|(1)              

---
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

SecnartLy; Vubl info Clip 

STK.:: -1\10]...., 

r.<10I,"" 

• .• 

MISSILIE/SPACI DAIL! 29 JULY 1966 (I4 Aug) 

MOL ORMA1- rot POLICY NOT TO BE AFFECTED By ANY U.S:-SOVIET ACCORDS 

frifo;inction policy for the Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory program will be set 

!:[ for each launch, according' to the Defense Deportment, and as best as can be determined will 

not be attected any aoree,

renrs regarding space between the Soviet Union and the United 

States. 

Accord:ng to DOD, the general information policy for MOL rect./H.43s the Air Force to 

set foith specific informat:on plans or each launch. The first information decision made concel.nino the prouram was the open coverage accorded the naming of MOL astronau!s. 

Since thon, it has c..:so been decided that Lie first neat Sic Id ciaolification test launch 

Oct. 28 at Cape Kennedy wI be open to the press. According to one informed source, it 

!'$ woula follow shot other launches made from Cape Kenredy wood also be open to the public. 

But, the Air Force says tnat its instructions are to come up with on information policy 

for each Launch Ii said :hat f0 law-on low-Ickes to the act. 28 launch coo Id be closed, open 

or port iaUy closed 

t has been said that in1ori.7;ation policy is, or will be affected by ogreernents reach- 

; CU 411 the Un:ted Nt7tions with regard to space. 

but Dr. Edward C. Welsh, executive secretcny of the National Aeronautics and _Space 

Council, said tl%ct MOL is not offectea i.-f/ current J.N. agreements. He told.M/S DAILY that 

the agreements concern the existence of weapons of mass destruction in space. MOL, Welsh said, 

, IS oat a weapons system. 

The possRdilitylios also been mentioned of a treaty on space sovereignty being negoliaied 

in Geneva between tne U.S. and Russia haves; an effect on MOL infor;natiorr pc4icy. 

to one report, the articles stale in part: "The parties to the treaty shall carry 

an activities in tl-re exploration and use of outer space, inciudirla the moon and °tiler celastial 

bodies, in accordance with international law, including the charter of the United Nations, in 

the interest cimciNTainiNg internat:o:.:a:,. peace and security and pronicting international coop rOlion and understanding .' 

borne Air Force people see qie. reported U.S.-Soviet article not affecting MOL information policy becousc of the ai.stin:;tion between outer and inner space, They believe that the .

agreement as reported does not cover near earth orbit, 

But, Welsh soid, "Our treaty poposc I does not make a distinction between near and outer 

, space ."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

RODNEY CULLEN

,

Respondent Below

, Appellant,

v.

DANIELA COWLEY

,

Petitioner Below

, Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No

. 345, 2020

Court Below

– Family Court

of the State of Delaware

File No. CN16

- 02303

Petition No. 19

- 30905

Submitted : June 9 , 2021

Decided: June 2 2 , 2021

Befor e VAUGHN

, TRAYNOR

, and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES , Justices.

ORDER

On this 22 nd day of June

, 202 1

, the Court, having considered this matter on

the briefs filed by the parties and the record on appeal, has determined that the

judgment of the Family Court should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons

assigned by the Family Court in its September 28, 2020 Order

.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is

AFFIRMED

.

BY THE COURT :

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves

Justice
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1383 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to subject the 

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to the regular appropriations 

process, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mr. PERDUE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 

to subject the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

to the regular appropriations process, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consumer Financial 

5 Protection Bureau Accountability Act of 2015’’. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1383 IS

1 SEC. 2. SUBJECTING THE BUREAU TO THE REGULAR AP2 PROPRIATIONS PROCESS. 

3 Section 1017 of the Consumer Financial Protection 

4 Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5497) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a)— 

6 (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 

7 ‘‘TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM BOARD OF GOV8 ERNORS.—’’ and inserting ‘‘BUDGET AND FI9 NANCIAL MANAGEMENT.—’’; 

10 (B) by striking paragraphs (1) through 

11 (3); 

12 (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and 

13 (5) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and 

14 (D) in paragraph (1) (as redesignated)— 

15 (i) by striking subparagraph (E); and 

16 (ii) by redesignating subparagraph 

17 (F) as subparagraph (E); 

18 (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c); 

19 (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as 

20 subsections (b) and (c), respectively; and 

21 (4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated)— 

22 (A) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) 

23 and inserting the following: 

24 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

25 There is authorized to be appropriated such funds as 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1383 IS

1 may be necessary to carry out this title for fiscal 

2 year 2015.’’; and 

3 (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as 

4 paragraph (2). 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:03 PM 

To: Culligan, Kevin 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: RE: Think we have EPact covered 

Ok. 

From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 1:47 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: Think we have EPact covered