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

**No. 16**  **- 6555** 

PHILLIP BYRD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. JOSEPH MCFADDEN , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 0:14

- cv - 04864

- RBH )

Submitted : March 20, 2017 Decided: March 29, 2017

Before TRAXLER and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Phillip Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cir cuit.2 PER CURIAM: Phillip Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issue s 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 reli ef 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 Byrd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Byrd’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We disp ense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### Rune KRAFT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OLDCASTLE PRECAST, INC., a Washington corporation; Inland Concrete Enterprises, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, an employee stock ownership plan, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56561

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 31, 2017

Rune Kraft, Pro Se

Joseph C. Faucher, Esquire, Attorney, Trucker Huss, APC, Los Angeles, CA, Timothy J. Rozelle, Esquire, Trucker Huss, APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Oldcastle Precast, Inc.

Joseph C. Faucher, Esquire, Attorney, Trucker Huss, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Inland Concrete Enterprises, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rune Kraft appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim, among other claims, arising from a 2007 stock purchase transaction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Thompson v. Paul,*547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Kraft’s RICO claim was proper because the claim involves issues that were previously litigated as part of the proceedings that resulted in judgment being entered against Kraft on June 22, 2011. *See Taylor v. Sturgell,*553 U.S. 880, 891 n.4, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (“For judgments in diversity cases, federal law incorporates the rules of preclusion applied by the State in which the rendering court sits.” (citation omitted)); *White v. City of Pasadena,*671 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that California’s issue preclusion doctrine “precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings” and setting forth six criteria to determine whether an issue is precluded (citation omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Affirmed.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 84 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 84

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 
                        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. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

    Notwithstanding sections 12106 through 12108 of title 46, United 
States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. 
App. 883), the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel BAGGER, 
hull identification number 3121125, and State of Hawaii registration 
number HA1809E.
                                 <all>
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 876

To provide that any payment to a local educational agency by the Department

of Defense, that is available to such agency for current expenditures

and used for capital expenses, shall not be considered funds available

to such agency for purposes of making certain Impact Aid determinations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 26 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Mr. EXON (for himself and Mr. KERREY) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To provide that any payment to a local educational agency

by the Department of Defense, that is available to such

agency for current expenditures and used for capital

expenses, shall not be considered funds available to such

agency for purposes of making certain Impact Aid determinations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 876 IS

1 SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF

2 DEFENSE PAYMENTS.

3 (a) 1994 PAYMENTS.—The Secretary of Education

4 shall not consider any payment to a local educational

5 agency by the Department of Defense, that is available

6 to such agency for current expenditures and used for cap7 ital expenses, as funds available to such agency for pur8 poses of making a determination for fiscal year 1994

9 under section 3(d)(2)(B)(i) of the Act of September 30,

10 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress) (as such Act was

11 in effect on September 30, 1994).

12 (b) AMENDMENT.—Clause (ii) of section

13 8003(f)(3)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Edu14 cation Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(f)(3)(A)) is

15 amended—

16 (1) by inserting ‘‘(I)’’ before ‘‘The Secretary’’;

17 and

18 (2) by adding at the end the following new

19 subclause:

20 ‘‘(II) The Secretary shall not consider any

21 payment to a local educational agency by the

22 Department of Defense, that is available to

23 such agency for current expenditures and used

24 for capital expenses, in determining under
3

•S 876 IS

1 subclause (I) the amount of State aid per pupil

2 received by such agency.’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 903 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 903

 To designate the Nellis Federal hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada as the 
    ``Mike O'Callaghan Military Hospital'', and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 9 (legislative day, June 5), 1995

  Mr. Bryan (for himself and Mr. Reid) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Nellis Federal hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada as the 
    ``Mike O'Callaghan Military Hospital'', 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. DESIGNATION OF MIKE O'CALLAGHAN MILITARY HOSPITAL.

    The Nellis Federal hospital, a Federal building located at 4700 
North Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Mike O'Callaghan Military Hospital''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Mike O'Callaghan 
Military Hospital''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Taby L. HARGETT Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-4263

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Filed: November 28, 2017

James H. Green, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant

' Meghan Jane McEvoy, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VII, Kansas City, • MO, Jeffrey P, Ray, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office,' Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Taby Hargett .-appeals the' district court’s1 order affirming the denial of supplemental security insurance benefits. Upon *de novo*review, we agree with the district court that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision is supported by *446substantial evidence on the record as a whole. *See Igo v. Colvin,*839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016). Specifically, we conclude that the ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence and Hargett’s subjective statements in evaluating her impairments and formulating her residual functional capacity (RFC), *see Myers v. Colvin,*721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the RFC determination is based on all relevant evidence, including medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and the claimant’s own description of her limitations); *Halverson v. Astrue,*600 F.3d 922, 929-30 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that a treating physician’s opinions are entitled to less weight when they are inconsistent or contrary to the medical evidence as a whole); *McGeorge v. Barnhart,*321 F.3d 766, 769 (8th Cir. 2003) (finding the ALJ properly limited the RFC determination to only those impairments and limitations he determined were credible); and that Hargett did not establish a more restrictive RFC, *see Martise v. Astrue,*641 F.3d 909, 923 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating that the burden of persuasion to prove disability and demonstrate RFC remains on the claimant). Further, the ALJ properly relied on the vocational expert’s (VE’s) response to the hypothetical that the ALJ posed, which was consistent with the ALJ’s RFC findings. *See Buckner v. Astrue,*646 F.3d 549, 560-61 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that a YE’s testimony that is based on a hypothetical that accounts for all of the claimant’s proven impairments constitutes substantial evidence). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri,
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6926 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal penalty 

for interfering with commerce by blocking public roads. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2024 

Mr. ROUZER (for himself, Mr. EDWARDS, and Mr. HUDSON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to establish a criminal penalty for interfering with commerce by blocking 

public roads. 

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 ‘‘Safe and Open Streets 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CRIME OF INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY 

7 BLOCKING PUBLIC ROADS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1951 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

2 

•HR 6926 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as 

2 subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(b) INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY BLOCK6 ING PUBLIC ROADS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) OFFENSE.—It shall be unlawful to, in any 

8 way or degree, purposely obstruct, delay, or affect 

9 commerce or the movement of any article or com10 modity in commerce by blocking a public road or 

11 highway, or to attempt or conspire so to do. 

12 ‘‘(2) PENALTY.—Any person who violates para13 graph (1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned 

14 not more than 5 years, or both.’’. 

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

16 (1) SECTION HEADING.—The heading of section 

17 1951 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 

18 striking ‘‘by threats or violence’’. 

19 (2) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections 

20 for chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code, is 

21 amended by striking the item relating to section 

22 1951 and inserting the following: 

‘‘1951. Interference with commerce.’’. 

23 (3) CROSS REFERENCES.— 

24 (A) TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE.—Sec25 tion 8332(o)(2)(B)(xx) of title 5, United States 

3 

•HR 6926 IH

1 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘by threats of vio2 lence’’. 

3 (B) TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE.— 

4 Part I of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (i) in section 1961(1), by striking ‘‘, 

7 robbery, or extortion’’; and 

8 (ii) in section 2516(1)(c), by striking 

9 ‘‘by threats or violence’’. 

Æ
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1205 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1205

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2001 of 19 June 2001 amending, for the first time, Council Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr Milosevic and those persons associated with him **

*
Official Journal L 163 , 20/06/2001 P. 0014 - 0015 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2001

of 19 June 2001

amending, for the first time, Council Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr Milosevic and those persons associated with him

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 of 10 November 2000 maintaining a freeze of funds in relation to Mr Milosevic and those persons associated with him and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1294/1999 and (EC) No 607/2000 and Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 926/98(1), and in particular Article 4(2)(a) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) In accordance with Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 all funds and other financial resources held outside the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia belonging to Mr Milosevic and to natural persons associated with him, are to be frozen and such funds and financial resources are not to be made available to or for the benefit of these persons, as listed in Annex I to the Regulation. The Commission is empowered to amend that Annex, taking into account decisions implementing Common Position 2000/696/CFSP(2).

(2) By means of Common Position 2001/155/CFSP(3), the Council amended the provisions of its Common Position 2000/696/CFSP as regards the ban on admission to the European Union. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 2488/2000 is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 June 2001.

For the Commission

Christopher Patten

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 287, 14.11.2000, p. 19.

(2) OJ L 287, 14.11.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 57, 27.2.2001, p. 3.

ANNEX

"ANNEX I

>TABLE>"
# EUR-Lex - 32000Y0720(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000Y0720(01)

**Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers: Annual average costs of benefits in kind - 1997 and 1998 **

*
Official Journal C 207 , 20/07/2000 P. 0003 - 0004 *

Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers

(2000/C 207/03)

The annual average costs do not take into account the reduction of 20 % provided for in Articles 94(2) and 95(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72.

The net monthly average costs have been reduced by 20 %.

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 1997(1)

I. Application of Article 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to the benefits in kind provided in 1997 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1997 under Article 28 and 28(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 1998(2)

I. Application of Article 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1998 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1998 under Article 28 and 28(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

(1) Average costs: Spain (OJ C 228, 11.8.1999).

Average costs: Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom (OJ C 27, 29.1.200).

(2) Average costs: Spain and Luxembourg (OJ C 27, 29.1.2000).
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6372 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6372

To amend the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 to permit 
the construction of certain noise barriers with funds from the Highway 
                  Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2016

  Mr. Lewis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 to permit 
the construction of certain noise barriers with funds from the Highway 
                  Trust Fund, 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 ``Neighborhood Noise Barriers Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. PERMITTING USE OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 
              CERTAIN NOISE BARRIERS.

    Section 339(b)(1) of the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995 (23 U.S.C. 109 note) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) General rule.--No funds made available out of the 
        Highway Trust Fund may be used to construct a Type II noise 
        barrier (as defined by section 772.5(i) of title 23, Code of 
        Federal Regulations) pursuant to subsections (h) and (i) of 
        section 109 of title 23, United States Code, unless--
                    ``(A) such a barrier is part of a project approved 
                by the Secretary before November 28, 1995; or
                    ``(B) such a barrier separates a highway or other 
                noise corridor from a group of structures of which the 
                majority of those closest to the highway or noise 
                corridor--
                            ``(i) are residential in nature; and
                            ``(ii) either--
                                    ``(I) were constructed before the 
                                construction or most recent widening of 
                                the highway or noise corridor; or
                                    ``(II) are at least 10 years 
                                old.''.

SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.

    Section 133 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(16) Planning, design, or construction of a Type II noise 
        barrier (as described in section 772.5 of title 23, Code of 
        Federal Regulations).''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(2) by inserting ``and paragraph 
        (16)'' after ``(11)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### HIGHLAND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP; Joseph L. Bane, Jr., Debtors-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., for the benefit of Jerome Guyant IRA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1429

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 2017

Decided: November 3, 2017

James P. Campbell, CAMPBELL FLANNERY P.C., Leesburg, Virginia; Christopher L. Rogan, ROGANMILLER-ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Leesburg, Virginia, for Appellants. Neil D. Goldman, GOLDMAN & VAN BEEK P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Highland Construction Management Services, LP, appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment to Wells Fargo Bank, f/b/o James Guyant IRA, on Highland’s complaint seeking “re-characterization” of a prior transaction between the parties. The bankruptcy court properly found that, because the nature and character of the transaction was ligated in prior state court proceedings between the same parties, Highland’s claim was barred by res judicata. *See*Va. Sup. Ct. R. l:6(a). We have reviewed the record on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Highland Constr. Mgmt. Servs., LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,*569 B.R. 673 (E.D. Va. 2017). 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.

*AFFIRMED*