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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6520

SIDDHANTH SHARMA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN RESPONDENT; PAT MCCRORY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (5:15-hc-02209-BO)

Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 6, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Siddhanth Sharma, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Siddhanth Sharma, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) petition challenging his pretrial detention. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Sharma’s petition is moot because he was convicted after filing 

his petition. See Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th 

Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 
3

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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 182 (Monday, September 21, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 50278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-10921]



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 182 / Monday, September 21, 1998 / 
Corrections

[[Page 50278]]



FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request

Correction

    In notice document 98-24553, beginning on page 49122, in the issue 
of Monday, September 14, 1998, make the following correction:
    On page 49122, in the third column, in the DATES: section, in the 
second line, ``[insert date 60 days from publication in the Federal 
Register]'' should read ``November 13, 1998''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE

EXPUNCTION OF C.W. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 177

- CV

Appeal from the

34 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2020DCV1494 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss th is appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss

the appeal. We further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST , 20 20

.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1794

MARILYNN M. MCRAE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

SAMUEL B. HIGDON; GENE D. BUTLER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00023-FL)

Submitted: January 9, 2024 Decided: April 8, 2024

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marilynn M. McRae, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1794 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Marilynn M. McRae appeals the district court’s order denying her motions for relief 

from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b), 79.

*

 Limiting our review to the 

issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 

177 (4th Cir. 2014), we have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion in the 

district court’s denial of those motions, see Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (stating standard of 

review); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (establishing one-year limit on filing of Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) 

motions). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. McRae v. Harrison, No. 5:17-

cv-00023-FL (E.D.N.C. May 31, 2023). 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

* To the extent McRae seeks to challenge the district court’s prior grant of summary 

judgment to Appellee Donnie Harrison on McRae’s claims, or the court’s denial of her 

May 2022 Rule 60(b) motion, those orders are not properly before us in this appeal. See 

United States v. Cannady, 63 F.4th 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2023) (discussing mandate rule);

Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n appeal from denial of Rule 

60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a 

notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1794 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Incorporation by Reference Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR- 2009 - 0837

January 28 , 20 10 The contents of the following docket s are hereb y incorporated b y reference into and considered to be included in, contained in, and to have been placed in Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 20 09 - 0837 (Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing): EPA - HQ - OAR - 2005 - 0132 (Revisions to the Continuous Emissions Monitoring Rule for the Acid Rain Program, NO x Budget Trading Program, Clean Air Interstate Rule, and the Clean Air Mercury Rule) ; and EPA - HQ - OAR - 2008 - 0800 (Stay of the Effectiveness of Requirements for Air Emission Testing Bodies) Accessing dockets: Publicly available docket materials are available either electronicall y in www.regulations.gov or in hard cop y at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 C onstitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m ., Monday through Friday , excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566 - 1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566 - 1742) .
John Jerome SPEIGHTS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4625

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the  purposes of  complying  with  Section 1,  U.S.C.,  1950,  I, the
undersigned  Chairman  of the  Board  and  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  M.B.A.
Holdings,  Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify, based on my knowledge,  that the
Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company  for the  quarter  ended April 30,
2004 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13 (a) of
the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that the  information  contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the
Company.

Dated June 14, 2004


                           By /s/ Gaylen M. Brotherson
                           -----------------------------------
                              Gaylen M. Brotherson
                              Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




                                       16
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-7118

KENNETH JOSEPH FARWELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CR-01-13-A, CA-02-728-AM)

Submitted: September 16, 2002

Decided: October 10, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Kenneth Joseph Farwell, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald J. Smagala,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Kenneth Joseph Farwell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), which the

district court construed as Farwell’s first motion under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000), and his motion for reconsideration. The district court

did not give Farwell notice and an opportunity to respond before

recharacterizing his motion as one filed under § 2255, as required by

this court’s recent decision in United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d

644 (4th Cir. 2002). We therefore grant a certificate of appealability,

vacate the district court’s orders, and remand in light of Emmanuel for

the district court to provide Farwell with notice of its intention to

recharacterize his filing and an opportunity for him to respond by proceeding with the recharacterization as a § 2255 motion or by electing

to have the district court address the merits of his § 2241 petition. See

id. at 649-50. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

2 UNITED STATES v. FARWELL
Exhibit 21.1



Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.



Subsidiaries of the Registrant

(50.1% or greater ownership)



|                                                  |  |               
|------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Legal Entity Name                                 |  | Inc./Org./Reg.
|Sunoco Partners LLC                               |  | Pennsylvania  
|Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P.                    |  | Delaware      
|Sunoco Logistics Partners GP LLC                  |  | Delaware      
|Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations L.P.         |  | Delaware      
|Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations GP LLC       |  | Delaware      
|Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P.        |  | Texas         
|Sunoco Partners Lease Acquisition & Marketing LLC |  | Delaware      
|Sunoco Pipeline L.P.                              |  | Texas         
|Sunoco Pipeline Acquisition LLC                   |  | Delaware      
|Sun Pipe Line Company of Delaware LLC             |  | Delaware
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.5



ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT




For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., a California corporation (“Assignor”), hereby assigns to STAR III BELMAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), all of Assignor’s rights and obligations under and in regard to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated May 22, 2017, (as may have been amended or may hereafter be amended, the “Purchase Agreement”), between Seagate Belmar Associates, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Seller”) and Assignor for the purchase and sale of that certain real property located in Lakewood, Colorado, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”).


Assignee hereby agrees to and shall assume, perform and be fully responsible for the performance of all of the obligations of Assignor under the Purchase Agreement.


All of the provisions, covenants and agreements contained in the Assignment shall extend to and be binding upon the respective legal representatives, successors and assigns of Assignor and Assignee.  This Assignment represents the entire agreement between Assignor and Assignee with respect to the subject matter of the Assignment, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements regarding such matters are hereby rendered null and void and of no force and effect. 


(SIGNATURES APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGE)




	
			
	Assignment of PSA
	1
	 












WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF, as of this July 21, 2017.




ASSIGNOR:


STEADFAST ASSET HOLDINGS, INC., 
a California corporation


By:  _/s/ Ana Marie del Rio____________
Ana Marie del Rio, Vice President 
 
 
                    


ASSIGNEE:


STAR III BELMAR, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company


By:     Steadfast Apartment Advisor III, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, 
its Manager
                                                
By:   _/s/ Kevin J. Keating___________
Kevin J. Keating, Treasurer




                            


















	
			
	Assignment of PSA
	2
	 











EXHIBIT A
Legal Description




Parcel One:


Lot 2, Block 1, Waterside West Subdivision Filing No. 5, as per the plat recorded November 10, 2005 at Reception No. 2005113307, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado.


Parcel Two:


Non-exclusive easements for access purposes over Tract A and Lots 3 and 5, Block 1, Waterside West Subdivision Filing No. 5, as more particularly described in the Declaration of Covenants, Easements and Restrictions recorded November 1, 2006 at Reception No. 2006130785, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado.


Parcel Three:


Lot 4, Block 2, Waterside West Subdivision Filing No. 5 Lot Line Adjustment No. 1 Plat, according to the plat thereof recorded March 7, 2008 at Reception No. 2008021830, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado.






	
			
	Assignment of PSA
	3
EXHIBIT 32.1





STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 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 MediaNet Group Technologies, Inc.., (the “Company”) for the three ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael B. Hansen, Chief Executive Officer, of the Company, certify that:





*  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





*  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our consolidated financial condition and results of operations.





Date: March 30, 2011





/s/ Michael B. HansenMichael B. HansenChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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 us for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Zinc and copper mineralization of the Vazante area, Minas Gerais, Brazil      

      January 1, 1956    

View Document

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

View Plate

A large body of zinc and copper mineralization is exposed in a line of low hills about 5 kilometers east of the small village of Vazante in the northwestern part of the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. The Vazante area can be reached by roads leading north from the State of Sao Paulo, via Araxa; west from Balo Horizonte, Minas Gerais; and south from Paracatu, Minas Gerais.

The deposit is in branching, sub-parallel fault breccia zones. Calamine (H2Zn2SiO5), and willomite (ZnSiO4), along with small quantities of smithsonite (ZnCO3), form the matrix of the fault breccia. The zinc mineralization is cut by narrow veins of chalcocite in platy crystal aggregate thought to be pseudomorphous after covellite. The chalcocite veins contain small quantities of sphalterite, galena, covellite and calamine.

Faults that contain breccia zones displace shale and dolomite. The sedimentary rocks are thought to be Silurian in age. The fault breccia zones have a regional trend of N 40 degrees E and crop out over a strike length of more than four kilometers. The mineralization of the fault zones was observed to continue to the north for an additional four kilometers. The mineralized fault breccia zones range from a few meters to 60 meters in width. A large ore body is indicated that from available samples may average 35 percent zinc.

## Citation Information
Yesuem I. ADORNO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1413

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Banco Bradesco S.A.Exhibit 13.1. CEO Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Banco Bradesco S.A. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 of the Company (the “Form 20-F”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: April 30, 2014  /s/ Luiz Carlos Trabuco CappiName: Luiz Carlos Trabuco CappiTitle: Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Corrections]
[Page 9532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X96-30308]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER91-195-023, et al.]


Western Systems Power Pool, et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate 
Regulation Filings

Correction

    In notice document 96-4489 beginning on page 7501 in the issue of 
Wednesday, February 28, 1996, make the following correction:
    On page 7501, in the second column, in filing number 2, the fifth 
docket number should read ``[Docket No. ER95-1421-002]''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.3


DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM SUMMARY
Effective May 4, 2017, the compensation paid to our outside directors will consist of:
	
		
	Type of Fee
	Fee 

	Annual Board Retainer (Cash)
	$125,000

	Additional Annual Board Retainer (Cash) (up to one)
If director meets one or more of the following during the calendar year:
- Serves as a member of a special committee
- Attends (in person) more than two offsite committee meetings  (excluding the annual Board retreat)
- Attends more than thirty (30) meetings of the Board and its regular standing committees
	$10,000

	Annual Board Retainer (Stock)
	$160,000

	Annual Non-Executive Chairman of the Board Retainer, if applicable
	$100,000

	Annual Lead Director Retainer, if applicable
	$40,000

	Annual Audit Committee Chair Retainer
	$25,000

	Annual Compensation Committee Chair/Nuclear Oversight Committee Chair Retainer
	$20,000

	Annual Committee Chair Retainer (Other Committees)
	$15,000
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Living with wildfire in Santa Fe: 2021 Data Report      

      May 1, 2024    

The City of Santa Fe is well known for arts, food, and architecture, but it also faces significant risk of wildfire. In 2020, the City of Santa Fe partnered with the Wildfire Research (WiRē) team with the goal of better understanding the needs of residents within the study area and their level of support for wildfire risk mitigation programs. The resulting project centers on two types of property-level data: rapid wildfire risk assessment data and household survey data. We followed the WiRē Rapid Wildfire Risk Assessment (WiRē RA) protocol, which measures parcel-level risk as the sum of a set of 13 attributes related to access to the property, background fuels and topography, vegetation near the home, and building materials. This report summarizes the results of the study. Overall, the study indicated a community that was engaged in preparing for wildfire yet had more that could be done to reduce its risk. Common architectural styles led to generally hardened structures, and respondents reported many risk reduction activities, yet most properties were found to have significant vulnerabilities related to limited defensible space and combustible materials near and attached to dwellings. Although many survey respondents did not perceive these same vulnerabilities on their own properties, survey results nonetheless demonstrated widespread interest for programs intended to reduce wildfire risk at the landscape, community, and individual parcel scales.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### James  R Meldrum, PhD

#####  Research Economist

Fort Collins Science Center

jmeldrum@usgs.gov

970-226-9176

## Related Content

#### James  R Meldrum, PhD

#####  Research Economist

Fort Collins Science Center

jmeldrum@usgs.gov

970-226-9176

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Fort Collins Science Center          

2150 Centre AvenueBldg CFort Collins, CO80526United States

970-226-9100

970-226-9230

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - new mexico

View All **
Scottie Bernard JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2584

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 27293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-20519]



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 1997 / 
Corrections

[[Page 27293]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 040497A]


Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Offshore Seismic Activities in the Beaufort Sea

Correction

    In notice document 97-10254 beginning on page 19553 in the issue of 
Tuesday, April 22, 1997 make the following corrections:
    1. On page 19554, in the first column, beginning in the 14th line, 
``Description of Habitat and Marine Mammal Affected by the Activity'' 
should have appeared as a bold face heading:

``Description of Habitat and Marine Mammal Affected by the 
Activity''

    2. On the same page, the same column, the second full paragraph, 
the 16th line, ``Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine 
Mammals'' should have appeared as a bold face heading:

``Potential Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals''

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D