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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7883

CREADELL HUBBARD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES RATLEDGE, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:15-cv-00599-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: December 21, 2018 Decided: January 10, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Creadell Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Creadell Hubbard appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2012) petition. The district court ruled that Hubbard’s challenge to his career 

offender status was not cognizable under § 2241 pursuant to In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 

(4th Cir. 2000). However, when it issued its decision, the district court did not have the 

benefit of our decisions in United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 2018), and 

Lester v. Flournoy, 909 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis, vacate the district court’s order, and remand for further consideration 

of Hubbard’s petition, including any relevant jurisdictional issues. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
# Official Journal L 309/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 309 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 499 November 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 309

English edition

Legislation

Volume 499 November 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 1646/2006 of 7 November 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 on the management of fishing fleets registered in the Community outermost regions | 1 |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 1647/2006 of 7 November 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro | 2 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/2006 of 8 November 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 4 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1649/2006 of 8 November 2006 on the application of the lowest rate of export refund for certain products in the eggs and poultrymeat sectors (Codified version) | 6 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 1646/2006 of 7 November 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 on the management of fishing fleets registered in the Community outermost regions

1

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 1647/2006 of 7 November 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 974/98 on the introduction of the euro

2

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/2006 of 8 November 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

4

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1649/2006 of 8 November 2006 on the application of the lowest rate of export refund for certain products in the eggs and poultrymeat sectors (Codified version)

6

| | | Acts adopted under Title V of the Treaty on European Union |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | 2006/756/CFSPPolitical and Security Committee Decision Darfur/4/2006 of 24 October 2006 appointing a Head of the EU Police Team/Police Advisor to the European Union Special Representative for Sudan | 9 |

Acts adopted under Title V of the Treaty on European Union

*

2006/756/CFSPPolitical and Security Committee Decision Darfur/4/2006 of 24 October 2006 appointing a Head of the EU Police Team/Police Advisor to the European Union Special Representative for Sudan

9

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Corey E. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUTLER LAW FIRM, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7616

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 27, 2018

Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. *See*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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00032-CV

In the Matter of M.R.S.

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. J-22,903, HONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The district court found beyond a reasonable doubt that M.R.S. committed criminal

trespass and adjudicated him delinquent. The court placed him on probation in his mother’s custody

for six months.

M.R.S. stipulated at trial that he intentionally and knowingly entered the premises of

a middle school with notice that such entry was forbidden and without the permission of the

principal, who is the owner of the school for this purpose. By his sole issue on appeal, M.R.S.

contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction over him because he should have been tried under

a more specific statute with a less severe punishment range. Compare Tex. Educ. Code Ann.

§ 37.107 (West 1996) (trespass on school grounds, Class C misdemeanor), with Tex. Pen. Code Ann.

§ 30.05 (West 2004-05)(trespass,Class B misdemeanor). He argues that, because the lesser offense

is a Class C misdemeanor and is not within the definition of delinquent conduct, the district court
2

lacked jurisdiction. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 51.03(a) (West Supp. 2004-05); see also Tex.

Const. art. V, § 19 (justice court has original jurisdiction over offenses punishable by fine only). 

This Court has concluded in a similar juvenile case, however, that these statutes are

not in pari materia, that the State could charge the juvenile under either statute, and that the district

court had jurisdiction over the allegation of criminal trespass against the juvenile. See In the Matter

of J.M.R., No. 03-03-00749-CV, slip op. at 8 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 21, 2004, no pet. h.). This

appeal is controlled by that decision.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

 

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: November 18, 2004
#### IN RE: Marco STRICKLAND, Petitioner.

No. 17-2452

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 26, 2018

Marco Strickland, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*311Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Marco Strickland petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court, on December 29, 2017, dismissed Strickland’s petition for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Strickland’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 15.1

December 20, 2001

C-COR.net Corp.
State College, Pennsylvania

Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-3

With respect to the subject registration statement, we acknowledge our awareness
of the use therein of our report dated October 11, 2001 related to our review of
interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP
-------------
KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#### IN RE: Stephen LAW, Debtor. Stephen Law, Appellant, v. Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP, Appellee.

No. 16-60041

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Stephen Law, Pro Se

Jessica L. Bagdanov, Steven Todd Gub-ner, I, Esquire, Attorney, Brutzkus Gub-ner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, for Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Chapter 7 debtor Stephen Law appeals pro se from an order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) dismissing his appeal as moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We affirm.

In his opening brief, Law fails to address the basis for the BAP’s order dismissing his appeal. As a result, he has waived any challenges to the order. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[0]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are *389deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.... ”).

The BAP properly dismissed Law’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order imposing conditions on the release of funds because the appeal was rendered moot by Law’s later receipt of the funds at issue. *See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC,*669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“An appeal is moot if no present controversy exists as to which an appellate court can grant effective relief.”).

The BAP properly declined to address issues not addressed in the bankruptcy court’s order that is the subject of this appeal. We also decline the parties’ requests to address issues beyond the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
June 11, 2015 

Mr. Jeff Robinson 

Director of Marketing 

Visit Indy 

200 South Capitol Avenue 

Indianapolis, IN 46225 

Dear Mr. Robinson: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 26, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1893), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
Exhibit
32.1





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
on Form 10-Q of Emerald Dairy Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended
September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yang Yong Shan, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President 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:





(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.





Date:  November
15, 2010





By:
                            
                            /s/
      Yang Yong ShanName:
                            Yang
      Yong ShanTitle:
                            Chairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal
      Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   GATEWAY  BANCSHARES,  INC.
               CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  RE  COMPUTATION  OF  EARNINGS  PER SHARE
                                          (unaudited)


The following tabulation presents the calculation of basic and diluted earnings per common
share for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002.





                                                      Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended
                                                     --------------------  --------------------
                                                     June 30,   June 30,   June 30,   June 30,
                                                       2003       2002       2003       2002
                                                     ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Basic net income                                     $ 344,824  $ 301,121  $ 736,005  $ 586,870
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic earnings on common shares                      $ 344,824  $ 301,121  $ 736,005  $ 586,870
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic      681,461    681,758    681,608    681,668
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic earnings per common share                      $    0.51  $    0.44  $    1.08  $    0.86
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic net income per common share                    $    0.51  $    0.44  $    1.08  $    0.86
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted net income                                   $ 344,824  $ 301,121  $ 736,005  $ 586,870
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted earnings on common shares                    $ 344,824  $ 301,121  $ 736,005  $ 586,870
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted    707,258    689,660    720,789    689,886
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted earnings per common share                    $    0.49  $    0.44  $    1.02  $    0.85
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted net income per common share                  $    0.49  $    0.44  $    1.02  $    0.85
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========
</TABLE>


                                     - 19 -
<PAGE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEREK SYLVESTER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

SCOTT P. RAWERS, Warden, Avenal

State Prison; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 08-15781

D.C. No. 2:03-CV-01301-GEB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Derek Sylvester appeals from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-15781

Sylvester contends the district court abused its discretion in declining to hold

an evidentiary hearing on his claim. After de novo review, we conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion because the record reveals Sylvester was

not diligent in developing the evidence in his state court proceedings. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2); Baja v. Ducharme, 187 F.3d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999).

Sylvester argues that the State has breached his plea agreement by capping

his custody credit eligibility at 15%. The state court’s rejection of this claim was

neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Santobello v. New York,

404 U.S. 257, 261-62 (1971), nor based on an unreasonable determination of the

facts based on the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1





1.2(c) Allocation of Aggregate Purchase Price



Subject to adjustments, the Aggregate Purchase Price shall
be allocated among the Schlumberger Equity Interests, the OSI Assets, the Rocky Mountain Assets and the Alliance Agreement and paid to the Sellers in the following proportions:



| | (i) |  | $591,000,000 to CII for the POC Shares (the POC Purchase Price),
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) |  | $22,000,000 to SOHL for the Harwat Interest (the Harwat Purchase Price),
| | ---- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (iii) |  | $125,000,000 to Surenco for the WilPro Interest (the WilPro Purchase Price),
| | ----- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (iv) |  | $8,500,000 to Operational Services, Inc. for the OSI Assets (the OSI Purchase Price),
| | ---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (v) |  | $0 to STC for the Rocky Mountain Assets (the Rocky Mountain Purchase Price), and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (vi) |  | $4,500,000 to STC and $10,000,000 to SOHL for the Alliance Agreement (the Alliance Purchase Price).
| | ---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The portion of the Aggregate Purchase Price paid by Purchaser in Hanover Stock
shall be allocated pro rata among the POC Purchase Price, the Harwat Purchase Price, the WilPro Purchase Price, the OSI Purchase Price, the Rocky Mountain Purchase Price and the Alliance Purchase Price. The portion of the Aggregate Purchase Price
paid by Purchaser with the Hanover Note shall be allocated solely to the POC Purchase Price. The balance of the POC Purchase Price, Harwat Purchase Price, WilPro Purchase Price, the OSI Purchase Price, the Rocky Mountain Purchase Price and the
Alliance Purchase Price will paid by Purchaser in cash.
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON DC 20590 

July 18, 2012 

The Honorable Michael Frerichs 

Illinois State Senate 

Springfi.eld, IL 62706 

Dear Senator Frerichs: 

Thank you for your letter supporting the proposal submitted by the University of Illinois" Willard 

Airport for a grant under the U.S. Department of Transportation's Small Community Air Service 

Development Program. 

The Small Community Air Service Development Program was established to help smaller 

communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares or 

insufficient service. Under the statute, the Department may make a maximum of 40 grant 

awards each year, although no more than 4 awards may be to communities in the same State. 

In .order to provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service 

deficiencies, the statute provides flexibility in the types of projects that can be funded. 

On May 15, the Department issued an order requesting that communities interested in receiving a 

grant this year file their applications by June 11. As these grant requests are pending before the 

Department, I cannot comment on the merits of any particular proposal. I assure you that the 

Department will give full and fair consi ion to all proposals that have been properly filed. 

As is our normal practice, I am placi 

DOT-OST-2012-0069 as a c 

this program. 

py of your letter and this r 

the record of this matter. 

nse in Docket 

reciate your interest in 
.$Iii ii!.IJIIilVI~$~f'/ AVL ~.,:[Q~ 

111ao 

~hould yot~ 

have on 

3
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 35

To require the posting of the Ten Commandments in the House and Senate

chambers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1997

Mr. STEARNS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on House Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To require the posting of the Ten Commandments in the

House and Senate chambers.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. POSTING AND DISPLAY.

4 The Ten Commandments shall be prominently posted

5 for display in the chambers of the House of Representa6 tives and the Senate of the United States.

Æ
No. 11-10260.

#### Olmos *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.