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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7592

DERICK CHRISTOPHER KESSING , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
UNKNOWN , Defendant

- Appellee

.

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

. David J. Novak , District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv
- 00504

- DJN

- EWH )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Derick Christopher Kessing, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7592 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Derick Christopher Kessing seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

action without prejudice as he requested . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over
final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Kessing seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny Kessing’s motion to compel and

dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 USCA4 Appeal: 21-7592 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: District of Columbia

Filters

              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(5)

## By Location

              - american samoa(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(5)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(7)
              - delaware(24)
              - district of columbia(56)
              - florida(1)
              - guam(1)
              - illinois(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(6)
              - maryland(50)
              - massachusetts(7)
              - new hampshire(6)
              - new jersey(8)
              - new york(9)
              - north carolina(1)
              - ohio(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(13)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - (-)rhode island(6)
              - south carolina(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - vermont(5)
              - virginia(32)
              - washington(3)
              - west virginia(12)
              - wisconsin(2)

## By Year

publication        October 26, 2015        Strategy to evaluate persistent contaminant hazards resulting from sea-level rise and storm-derived disturbances—Study design and methodology for station prioritization

publication        June 28, 2019        The presence of antibiotic resistance genes in coastal soil and sediment samples from the eastern seaboard of the USA

publication        April 2, 2020        Low threshold for nitrogen concentration saturation in headwaters increases regional and coastal delivery

publication        January 1, 2018        Thresholds of lake and reservoir connectivity in river networks control nitrogen removal

publication        March 1, 2013        Observed changes in phenology across the USA: A regional review for the 2013 National Climate Assessment, Northeast Regional Information Sheet

Data Release        November 28, 2017        Analytical inorganic chemistry results for samples collected for the Sediment-Bound Contaminant Resiliency and Response Strategy pilot study, northeastern United States, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 23, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 23, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0217. H. LANE HOLTON v. DAVID G. HOLTON et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

11V405
M.R., The Mother, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1559

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
H.R., Father of B.R., a Minor Child, Appellant, v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2647

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Case 21-17694-RAM    Doc 30    Filed 02/17/22    Page 1 of 1
* 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. 01-41217

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE SANCHEZ-QUIJANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-01-CR-617-ALL

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

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Sanchez-Quijano appeals his conviction and sentence

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry

into the United States. Sanchez argues that the magistrate judge

lacked jurisdiction to conduct his rearraignment in the absence

of a referral order by the district court. 

Sanchez did not object in the district court to the

magistrate judge’s exercise of authority. He waived his right to

raise the procedural defect in his guilty plea proceeding as a
No. 01-41217

-2-

basis for relief. United States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253,

257 (5th Cir. 2002).

Sanchez also argues that his indictment was constitutionally

defective because it did not charge that he had a general intent

to commit the offense. Sanchez’s indictment was sufficient

because it enumerated the statutory elements of the offense,

informed him of the charge, and fairly implied that his reentry

was voluntary in view of the allegation that he had been deported

and removed from the United States and was present without having

first obtained the Attorney General’s consent. United States

v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d 233, 239 & n.13, cert. denied,

533 U.S. 953 (2001); United States v. Berrios-Centeno, 250 F.3d

294, 297-300 & n.4 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 928 (2001). 

Sanchez is not entitled to relief on this claim.

Sanchez’s acknowledges that his argument that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but states that he is raising the

issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. 

Almendarez-Torres held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. 

See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90. This court must follow the

precedent set in Almendarez-Torres unless and until it is

overruled by the Supreme Court. United States v. Dabeit,
No. 01-41217

-3-

231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202

(2001). This claim is without merit.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony TIPTON

NO. 2018-KK-1376

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 14, 2018

Writ denied.

GENOVESE, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE**

GENOVESE, J., would grant this writ for the following reasons:

This case presents an allotment issue. Because the victim in this rape case was unable to articulate the exact date(s) of the offense, the judge handling the defendant's bond review hearing directed the clerk of court to randomly allot the case pursuant to a local court rule in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court calling for random allotment when the date of the offense is indeterminate.

Six months later, a grand jury indicted the defendant reciting the offense to have occurred "between the approximate dates of September 1, 2015[,] through May 28, 2016." With the approximate dates now established, defendant filed a "Motion for Proper Allotment of a Felony Criminal Case."

According to Rule No. 14.0, Appendix 14.14.0A, of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court Local Rules, the reallotment of this case is to go "to the section of court on duty on the determined date." In adhering to the mandate of this local rule, the presiding trial judge correctly allotted the case to the judge "on duty on the determined date."

The court of appeal disregarded said local rule and reversed the trial court, thereby injecting a non-existent timeline into the local rule and requiring the defendant to show bias. The local rule speaks for itself and does not set forth any timeline nor does it require any showing of bias. Because the court of appeal failed to adhere to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court's local rule on allotment, I would reverse the court of appeal and reinstate the trial court's ruling.
Gerard BELL, et al. v. MARATHON PIPELINE, LLC, Shell Pipeline

NO. 2018-C-1366

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 14, 2018

Not considered. Not timely filed. See La.S.Ct.R. X, § 5.
Certification

I, John M. Gordon, a Vice President in the Asset Backed Services, Treasury Activities Department of Wachovia Bank,
National Association, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Wachovia Asset Securitization, Inc 2003-HE1.2.  Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;3.  Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.  The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the
Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.Date: March 31, 2005By: /s/ John Gordon
Name: John Gordon
Title: Vice President
Company: Wachovia Bank, National Association
Exhibit 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Charles M. Weaver, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Altria Debenture-Backed Series
          2003-8 Trust (the "Trust") and all reports on Form 8-K containing
          distribution or servicing reports of the Trust filed in respect of
          periods included in the year covered by this annual report of the
          Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
          whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
          omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
          in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
          not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
          pooling and servicing or similar agreement, for inclusion in these
          reports is included in these reports; and

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing or similar
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each fulfilled its
          obligations under that agreement.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 28, 2005


         /s/ CHARLES M. WEAVER
-----------------------------------
Charles M. Weaver, Vice President
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50670 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAUL CALZADA-VILLA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2605-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Raul CalzadaVilla raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Ronnie YORK

NO. 2018-KH-1592

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

November 5, 2018

Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. York v. State, 15-1775 (La. 11/15/16), 206 So.3d 184.
Torrey Terrill ELDRIDGE, DOC# 748605, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4992

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-31028 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ENRICO HAWKINS, also known as Rico Hawkins, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:10-CR-330-3
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Enrico Hawkins has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Ca l if o r n i a , 386 U

. S

. 7 3 8 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hawkins has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portio n s o f the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r l e ave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 21, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-31028 Document: 00511963599 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012No. 11-31028

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R . R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-31028 Document: 00511963599 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012
Lorenzo M. LAWSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2853

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

CRENSHAW, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
# C_2020216EN.01001301.xml

| 30.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/13

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

(M.8909 – KME/MKM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 216/09)

1.

On 4 June 2018, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration (the ‘Concentration’), according to which KME AG (‘KME’) proposed to acquire sole control of MKM Mansfelder Kupfer and Messing GmbH (‘MKM’) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (the ‘Merger Regulation’) by way of purchase of shares. KME and MKM are designated hereinafter as the ‘Parties’.

2.

On 23 July 2018, the Commission adopted a decision initiating proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation (the ‘Article 6(1)(c) Decision’). In that decision, the Commission found that the Concentration raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area. On 23 August 2018, the Parties submitted written comments on the Article 6(1)(c) Decision.

3.

The results of the in-depth market investigation did not confirm the serious doubts of the previous phase and the draft decision declares the Concentration compatible with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The Commission did not issue a statement of objections pursuant to Article 13(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 (3) and there was no formal oral hearing in accordance with Article 14 of that regulation.

4.

Five interested third persons were admitted in the present proceedings.

5.

Overall, I consider that the effective exercise of procedural rights has been respected during the present proceedings.

Brussels, 4 December 2018.

Joos STRAGIER

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29) (‘Decision 2011/695/EU’).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 133, 30.4.2004, p. 1; corrigendum OJ L 172, 6.5.2004, p. 9).

3

---
---

PROMISSORY NOTE

Principle Amount Cdn$25,000.00

THIS PROMISSORY NOTE is dated for reference as of the
7thday of November, 2006 and is made at Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.

|Maturing: | 75 days as of the date above.
|--------- | -----------------------------
|          |                              
|Interest: | 15% per annum.               

In consideration of the loan by Kathy Huettl, the
(Lender), located at 303  3200 Capilano Road, North Vancouver, B.C.
V7R 4H7 to the undersigned, Canyon Copper Corp. [formerly Aberdene
Mines Limited]the (Borrower), located at 409  1199 West Pender
Street, Vancouver, BC, V6E 2R1 of Cdn$25,000.00 receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Borrower hereby promises to pay to the Holder of
this note, the principle sum of Cdn$25,000.00 with interest at a rate of 15% per
annum equal to an aggregate sum of Cdn$25,770.55 on or before January 21,
2007.

The Borrower shall pay a 7.5% administration fee of
$1,875.00 on the principle amount to the Holder.

This note and the obligations and benefits pertaining thereto
are fully transferable by the Lenderto any other party who shall be
known as the Holder.

The Holder of this note may, from time to time, grant
written indulgences in respect of certain payment amounts or periods but such
indulgences shall not in any way affect the undersigneds liability upon this
note nor shall such indulgences vary any other term to which indulgences has not
specifically been granted. No indulgence shall be enforceable against the
Holderunless granted in writing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Borrower has executed this
Promissory Noteas of the day and year first written above.

|                  |  |                     
|----------------- |  | --------------------
|WITNESS SIGNATURE |  | AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
|                  |  |                     
|                  |  |                     
|PRINT NAME        |  | PRINT NAME          

Reviewed and accepted by:

|     | as of | .   
|---- | ----- | ----
|NAME |       | DATE

---
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
DA 22

- 0486

_________________ GILBERT R. JOHNSTON and JUDITH A. JOHNSTON, husband and wife; STEPHEN R. GIBBS; SCOTT SHONE; DONALD S. SMITH and BRENDA J. SMITH, husband and wife as trustees of the Donald S. Smith and Brenda J. Smith AB Living Trust; RACHELLE AMBER McCRACKEN; MICHAEL ALLEN McCRACKEN; SEAN JUSTIN SMITH; GERALD B. WOODAHL and SUSAN A. WOODAHL, husband and wife; JEFFREY M. HOLLENBACK; JIM S. FERGUSON; ERIC W. SM ART and STEPHANIE NICOLE SMART, husban d and wife; NANCY CORDIAL; EDS INVESTMENTS, LLC an Arizona limited liability company; NEWS DEVELOPMENT, LLC a Montana limited liability company; and JCO PROPERTIES, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.
FLYING S TITLE & ES CROW, INC., f/k/a FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ De fendant and Appellee Flying S. Title & Escrow, Inc., f/k/a First American Title Company, has moved this Court , without objection from Appellants, to amend the caption in this matter pur suant to M. R. App. P. 2(4) to more accurately reflect its current name. Upon consideration of Appellee ’ s motion and with good cause appearing , IT IS THEREFORE ORD ERED that the moti on to amend the caption is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to amend this Court ’ s Ca se No. 22

- 0486 accordingly.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 9 2023

02/09/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0486