alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-7034

JAMES DONALD PRITCHETT, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-123-R) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: March 15, 1999Before ERVIN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Donald Pritchett, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James D. Pritchett seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and his motion for reconsideration. As to the denial of his § 2254 petition, Pritchett’s notice of appeal is untimely, and we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Pritchett had thirty days to note an appeal from the district court’s May 28, 1998 order. His notice of appeal was dated July 8, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 46(a) (1). Pritchett’s failure to note a timely appeal or to obtain anextension of the appeal period deprives us of jurisdiction to review the May 28 order. Because Pritchett’s motion for reconsideration was filed more than ten days after the May 28 order, it did not toll the appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). As for the court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as to both orders. Pritchett v. Angelone , No. CA-98-123-R (W.D. Va. May 28 & July 1, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Nos. DA 21-0624

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KENNETH WAYNE DALY,

Defendant and Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 12, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal in this matter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2022

12/22/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0624
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11452

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES CHARLES HOWELL, also known as Jay Howell,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:00-CR-473-1

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

June 20, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Charles Howell appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for possession of an unregistered

firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845(a), 5861(d), and 5871. 

The Government argues that Howell knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to appeal his sentence as part of his plea

agreement. Howell argues that the waiver provision does not bar

this appeal because it allows him to appeal an upward departure. 

He argues that he is challenging the district court’s imposition
No. 01-11452 

-2-

of a partly consecutive sentence which was the functional

equivalent of an upward departure.

Howell has not shown that the sentence imposed by the

district court was the result of an upward departure. The

district court sentenced Howell to 51 months, a sentence within

the applicable guideline range of 41 to 51 months. The district

court explained that it was imposing a partly consecutive

sentence because the state felony offense was only partly taken

into consideration in calculating the applicable guideline range

for the firearm offense. If the district court had fully

considered the state narcotics offense by applying U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(c) in calculating Howell’s offense level, Howell would

have faced a guideline sentencing range of 78 to 97 months of

imprisonment. Because the district court did not fully take the

state narcotics offense into consideration, U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c)

applied to the calculation of Howell’s sentence.

Section 5G1.3(c) authorized the district court to impose a

sentence “to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or

consecutively to the prior undischarged term of imprisonment to

achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.”

Therefore, Howell’s sentence was not the result of an upward

departure from the applicable guideline range. Because the

district court did not depart upward, the waiver-of-appeal

provision in the plea agreement is applicable. The record

indicates that Howell knowingly and voluntarily waived the right

to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Henderson, 72 F.3d

463, 464-65 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Melancon,
No. 01-11452 

-3-

972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, Howell may not

appeal his sentence, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Jonathon BRAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Najla BRAY k/n/a Najla Murray, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4405

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 08, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25190]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-10511]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3634 

To require a report on the establishment of a joint Army-Navy storage 

and preservation facility at the United States Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2012 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a report on the establishment of a joint ArmyNavy storage and preservation facility at the United 

States Army Heritage and Education Center, Carlisle, 

Pennsylvania. 

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 ‘‘Joint Military Heritage 

5 Preservation Act of 2012’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 3634 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT ARMY-NAVY 

2 STORAGE AND PRESERVATION FACILITY AT 

3 THE UNITED STATES ARMY HERITAGE AND 

4 EDUCATION CENTER, CARLISLE, PENNSYL5 VANIA. 

6 (a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days 

7 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

8 of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense com9 mittees a report setting forth an assessment of the feasi10 bility and advisability of establishing a joint Army-Navy 

11 storage and preservation facility at the United States 

12 Army Heritage and Education Center (USAHEC), Car13 lisle, Pennsylvania, including for purposes of improving 

14 the storage and preservation of materials under the re15 sponsibility of the Naval History and Heritage Command 

16 (NHHC). 

17 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

18 (1) The term ‘‘congressional defense commit19 tees’’ has the meaning given that term in section 

20 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code. 

21 (2) The term ‘‘Naval Historical and Heritage 

22 Command’’ means the Navy command that is re23 sponsible for the preservation, analysis, and dissemi24 nation of the history and heritage of the Navy. The 

25 Command is based at the Washington Navy Yard, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 3634 IS

1 District of Columbia, and is composed of 42 facili2 ties in 13 geographic locations. 

3 (3) The term ‘‘United States Army Heritage 

4 and Education Center’’ means the integrated edu5 cational and research complex of the Army that ac6 quires, conserves, stores, exhibits, interprets, and 

7 makes available all types of historical materials. The 

8 Center is located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and is 

9 composed of the Army Military History Institute, 

10 the Army Heritage Museum, a historical services di11 vision, a digital archive, and a museum support and 

12 conservation facility. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Program MQLVTHXYZ : computer inversion of three-component, time-domain, magnetic-field sounding data generated using an electric wire source      

      January 1, 1980    

View Document

No abstract available.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

####             Jim Kauahikaua (Former Employee)          

##### Research Geophysicist

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory

## Related Content

####             Jim Kauahikaua (Former Employee)          

##### Research Geophysicist

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory

### Contacts

####             Jim Kauahikaua (Former Employee)          

##### Research Geophysicist

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 19-24331-BKC-JKO

PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER 13

IN RE:

RALPH LEVI SANDERS, JR.

XXX-XX-6171

_____________________________/

AMENDED

NOTICE OF CONTINUED CONFIRMATION HEARING

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Confirmation Hearing has been continued to 

March 02, 2020 at 9:00 AM at the United States Federal Bankruptcy Courthouse, 299 East Broward 

Boulevard, Room 301, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the Court may dismiss the above-referenced case for failure to propose a 

confirmable plan or for any other reason deemed necessary by the Court without further notice.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to practice in this 

Court as set forth in Local Rule 2090-1(A) and that a true and correct copy of this Notice of Continued 

Confirmation Hearing was served, via U.S. first class mail, certified mail and/or CM/ECF, upon the parties 

listed on the attached service list this 5th day of February, 2020.

DEBTOR

_____________________________________ /s/ Robin R. Weiner

ROBIN R. WEINER, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 559007

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33355-9007

TELEPHONE: 954-382-2001

FLORIDA BAR NO.: 861154

Case 19-24331-JKO Doc 42 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF CONTINUED CONFIRMATION HEARING

CASE NO.: 19-24331-BKC-JKO

SERVICE LIST

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

DEBTOR

RALPH LEVI SANDERS, JR.

561 SW 60 AVE.

PLANTATION, FL 33317

ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR

MICHAEL H. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE

3601 WEST COMMERICAL BLVD

SUITE 31

FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33309

MICHAEL H. JOHNSON, ESQUIRE IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO MAIL A CONFORMED COPY OF 

THIS NOTICE TO ALL CREDITORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT 

THEREOF.

Case 19-24331-JKO Doc 42 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 10(J)(A)

               SCHEDULE OF CHANGE IN CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

          In accordance with the Instructions to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, the
Registrant has omitted filing Change in Control Employment Agreements by and
between P. H. Glatfelter Company and the following employees as exhibits to this
Form 10-K because they are identical to the Form of Change in Control Employment
Agreement by and between P. H. Glatfelter Company and certain employees, which
is filed as Exhibit 10 (j) to our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2007.

                                 David C. Elder
                                Timothy R. Hess
                                John P. Jacunski
                               Jeffrey J. Norton
                                Dante C. Parrini
                                  Martin Rapp
                                Mark A. Sullivan
                            William T. Yanavitch II
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 9387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02969]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 10:00 a.m.--11:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

    Decisional Matter: Sections 1112/1118 Requirements for Third Party 
Conformity Assessment Bodies--Draft Final.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02969 Filed 2-6-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
# L_2004344EN.01000301.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 344/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 344/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1987/2004

of 19 November 2004

applying a reduction coefficient to refund certificates for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, as provided for by Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6 December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 of 13 July 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), and in particular Article 8(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Member States' notifications pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 indicate that the total amount of applications received reaches 248 761 823 EUR while the available amount for the tranche of refund certificates as referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 is 78 594 136 EUR. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Member States' notifications pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 indicate that the total amount of applications received reaches 248 761 823 EUR while the available amount for the tranche of refund certificates as referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000 is 78 594 136 EUR.

| (2) | A reduction coefficient shall be calculated on the basis of Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000. Such coefficient should therefore be applied to amounts requested in the form of refund certificates for use from 1 December 2004 as established in Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A reduction coefficient shall be calculated on the basis of Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000. Such coefficient should therefore be applied to amounts requested in the form of refund certificates for use from 1 December 2004 as established in Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amounts for applications of refund certificates for use from 1 December 2004 are subject to a reduction coefficient of 0,685.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 November 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 November 2004.

For the Commission

Olli REHN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 318, 20.12.1993, p. 18. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/2000 (OJ L 298, 25.11.2000, p. 5).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 177, 15.7.2000, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 886/2004 (OJ L 168, 1.5.2004, p. 14).

2

---
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 6595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-40202]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-35247; International Series Release No. 774 File No. 
SR-CBOE-95-01]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule 
Change by the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. Relating to the 
Listing of Warrants on the Duetscher Aktien Index (``DAX Index'')

Correction

    In notice document 95-1979 beginning on page 5233 in the issue of 
Thursday, January 26, 1995, make the following correction:
    On page 5235, in the first column, insert the following before the 
FR Doc. line:
Margaret McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-7149 ALICCIA VOSS,

Claimant-Appellant,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 06-0786, Judge Bruce E. Kasold. ON MOTION 

### ORDER The court treats Aliccia Voss's letter as a motion for an extension of time to file her brief. The court notes that Voss's appeal was dismissed on February 11, 2009 for failure to file a brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion will be granted, the mandate will be recalled, the dismissal order will be vacated, and the petition for review will be reinstated, if Voss files her brief within 30 days of the date of filing of this order.

### FOR THE COURT



# MAR 0 9 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

### Date Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
MAR 0 9 2009
JAN CLERK Cc: 

### Aliccia Voss (informal brief form enclosed) David F. D'Alessandris, Esq.
s20

2008-7149 - 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,829,580
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,376,717
<PP&E>                                         451,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,515,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,556,777
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           662
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,958,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,515,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,549
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,927,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,866,842
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,866,842
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 129 (Thursday, July 6, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 35264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-30706]




Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 129 / Thursday, July 6, 1995 / 
Corrections
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 35264]]


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Establishment of Two Purchase Units, California and Oregon, and 
an Addition to the Sur Sur Purchase Unit, California

Correction

    In notice document 95-7614 beginning on page 15896 in the issue of 
Tuesday, March 28, 1995, make the following correction:
    On page 15897, in the first column, in the land description for 
Douglas County, Oregon, in the 4th line, ``E\1/2\W\1/4\'' should read 
``E\1/2\NW\1/4\''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            Report of Independent Auditors on Schedule and Consent

The Board of Directors
Viador Inc.:

The audit referred to in our report dated January 20, 2000 included the related
financial statement schedule as of December 31, 1999 and for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, included in the Company's
annual report on Form 10-K. This financial statement schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audit. In our opinion,
such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 (No. 333-91805) of Viador Inc. of our reports dated January 20, 2000,
relating to the balance sheets of Viador Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and 1998
and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999 and the
related schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 1999, annual report
on Form 10-K of Viador Inc.

                                       /s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
March 29, 2000