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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT PADGETT, a/k/a Snoop,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (CR-98-48, CA-00-788-3)

Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 24, 2003

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Padgett, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Annette Green, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Padgett seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Padgett has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1580
MAJOR MIKE WEBB, d/b/a Friends for Mike Webb (C00591537), agent of Major Mike Webb for Congress (H8VA08167), a/k/a Major Mike for VA, a/k/a Mike Webb for APS Board, agent of Major Mike Webb for APS Board , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JAMES CHRISTIAN KIMMEL; WUSA9, a/k/a Channel 9; AMERICAN BROADCAST COMPANY INC., a/k/a Jimmy Kimmel Live!; WJLA TV, a/k/a News Channel 8; ABC LEGAL SERVICES; SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP; JANE AND JOHN DOES , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. M. Hannah Lauck , District Judge. ( 3:22

- cv - 00392

- MHL )

Submitted : October 31, 2023 Decided: November 2, 2023

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Mike Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick John Curran, Jr., Nathan Ellis Siegel, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Laurin Howard Mills, WERTHER & USCA4 Appeal: 23-1580 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia , for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1580 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Mike Webb appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second amended complaint for failure to comply with the court’s instructions to particularize his claims and
for failure to state a claim , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) , and the court’s order denying his request for default judgment . We have reviewed Webb’s second amended complaint and conclude that the district court correctly found that Webb failed to provide specific factual allegations in support of his claims. Furthermore, while Webb ar gues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his request for default judgment against three of the Defendants, the court properly denied Webb’s request on the ground that t hose
Defendants were never served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Accordingly, we affirm. Webb v. Kimmel , No. 3:22

- cv - 00392

- MHL (E.D. Va. May 3, 2023; May 18, 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 d ecisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1580 Doc: 15 Filed: 11/02/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 33 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 1 of 2

GW Equity LLC et al v. PBS Global Inc et al Doc. 33

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 33 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 2 of 2
`[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 14, 2025)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 3599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00953]



[[Page 3597]]

Vol. 90

Tuesday,

No. 8

January 14, 2025

Part IX





The President





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



Memorandum of January 8, 2025--Delegation of Certain Authorities Under 
Section 7271 of Title 10, United States Code
 
 
                         Presidential Documents 
 
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 8 / Tuesday, January 14, 2025 / 
Presidential Documents  

 ___________________________________________________________________

 Title 3--
 The President

[[Page 3599]]

                Memorandum of January 8, 2025

                
Delegation of Certain Authorities Under Section 
                7271 of Title 10, United States Code

                Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense [and] the 
                Secretary of the Army

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, including section 301 of title 3, United 
                States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of the 
                Army the authority vested in the President by section 
                7271 of title 10, United States Code, to present 
                certain previously awarded Medals of Honor. This 
                delegated authority is limited to the Medals of Honor 
                approved in 1906 for Private William Simon Harris, 
                United States Army, and Private James W. McIntyre, 
                United States Army, which shall be presented, as an 
                administrative corrective action, to the eldest 
                surviving grandchild of each awardee.

                For each such case, the Secretary of the Army shall 
                notify the President through the Secretary of Defense 
                prior to making the presentation.

                The Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed to 
                publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
                
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, January 8, 2025

[FR Doc. 2025-00953
Filed 1-13-25; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3710-08-P`
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6246

MITCHELL WRIGHT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CA-95-1646-2-19AJ)

Submitted: December 10, 1996 Decided: January 9, 1997

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mitchell Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate.

We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Wright v. Ward, No. CA-95-1646-2-19AJ (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 1996). 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00452-CV

Andrea R. Biller, Appellant

v.

NNN Met Center 15 5, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 6, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 7, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 8, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 10, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 11, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 16, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 18, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 19, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 21, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 22, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 23, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 25, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 26, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 27, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 28, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 29, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 30, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 31, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 32, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 33, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 35, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 36, LLC; NNN Met Center 15 38, LLC;

NNN Met Center 15 39, LLC; NNN 1 & 2 Met Center TIC; 

and Lexington Insurance Company, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-12-001271, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The parties have filed a joint status report in this abated appeal requesting that we

continue the abatement of this appeal pending continuing settlement negotiations. We abate the

appeal until June 4, 2014. All appellate deadlines will be tolled during the period of abatement. The

parties shall submit either a motion to reinstate or a joint status report concerning the status of

settlement negotiations no later than June 4, 2014.
_____________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field

Abated

Filed: May 9, 2014

2
Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 1 of 9 PageID 195
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 2 of 9 PageID 196
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 3 of 9 PageID 197
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 4 of 9 PageID 198
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 5 of 9 PageID 199
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 6 of 9 PageID 200
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 7 of 9 PageID 201
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 8 of 9 PageID 202
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00227-M Document 25 Filed 03/14/06 Page 9 of 9 PageID 203
Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-57577, 333-61780,333-108163 and 333-120906 on Form S-8; Post-effective Registration Statement No. 333-145357 on FormS-8; and Registration Statement No. 333-141475 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 17, 2008(which reports express an unqualified opinion and include an explanatory paragraph relating to theadoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48, “*Accounting for Uncertaintyin Income Taxes — an Interpretation of Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 109,*” onJanuary 1, 2007 and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004),"*Share-Based Payment*,” on January 1, 2006), relating to the consolidated financial statements ofKendle International Inc. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness ofKendle International Inc.'s internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kendle International Inc. andsubsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2007./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPCincinnati, Ohio
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RICHARD SHARIF, et al., §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:05-CV-01367-B

§

WELLNESS INTERNATIONAL §

NETWORK, LTD a/k/a WIN; et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Court’s memorandum orders of May 9, 2007 (granting in part and

denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6)) and July

16, 2007 (granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment), it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and

DECREED that Plaintiffs Richard Sharif (as agent for Soad Wattar, Haifa Kaj and Ragda Sharifeh),

Waqar and Shafqut Khan, and Abdul and Shaheen Rashid take nothing on their claims against

Defendants Wellness International Network, Ltd a/k/a WIN, WIN Network, Inc., Ralph Oats, Cathy

Oats, and Sheri Matthews and that all of Plaintiffs’ claims be, and they are hereby, DISMISSED with

prejudice. Costs shall be assessed against Plaintiffs in accordance with Rule 54(d), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. 

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED July 17, 2007

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01367-B Document 103 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1339
EX PARTE Michael D. MOORE

CR-16-1091

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 25, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companyat the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

Dated: May 16, 2005 

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCompany, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 614 

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in United States v. 

Miller. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2024 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize testimony, documents, and representation in 

United States v. Miller. 

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Miller, No. 2:23-cr00221, pending in the United States District Court for 

the District of Nevada, the prosecution has requested the 

production of documents from the offices of Senators 

Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto and also has 

requested testimony from employees in those offices; 

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the 

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a) 

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent current and former employees of the Senate with 

respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony 

or documents relating to their official responsibilities; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

SRES 614 ATS 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, be 

taken from such control or possession but by permission 

of the Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the office of Senator Jacky Rosen is 

2 authorized to produce documents and that Dara Cohen, 

3 John Fossum, and Carlos Lara, employees in that office, 

4 are authorized to testify in the case of United States v. 

5 Miller, except concerning matters for which a privilege 

6 should be asserted. 

7 SEC. 2. That the office of Senator Catherine Cortez 

8 Masto is authorized to produce documents and that em9 ployees of that office from whom relevant evidence may 

10 be needed are authorized to testify in the case of United 

11 States v. Miller, except concerning matters for which a 

12 privilege should be asserted. 

13 SEC. 3. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to 

14 represent the employees of Senator Rosen’s and Senator 

15 Cortez Masto’s offices in connection with the production 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

SRES 614 ATS 

1 of evidence and testimony authorized in sections one and 

2 two of this resolution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-10627

___________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JOSE MANUEL MALFAVON; JESUS HINOJOSA CASTILLO, a/k/a Chuey,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:94-CR-00170)

______________________________________________________ May 12, 1997 Before DAVIS, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant Castillo makes three

arguments: (l) the evidence was insufficient to support his

convictions for conspiracy and for using a telephone to facilitate

the conspiracy; (2) the trial court erred in refusing to decrease

Castillo's offense level because he was a minor or minimal

participant in the conspiracy; (3) the conviction should be

reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel.2

Our review of the record persuades us that the evidence was

sufficient to convict Castillo on both the conspiracy count and the

use of a telephone to facilitate a drug conspiracy. The sentencing

court did not abuse its discretion in declining to decrease

Castillo's offense level based on a min or or minimal role in the

conspiracy. We follow the general rule and decline to consider

Castillo's contention in this direct appeal that he was denied the

effective assistance of trial counsel.

As to Malfavon's contention that he was denied the effective

assistance of trial counsel, we also decline to review that

argument in this direct criminal appeal.

AFFIRMED.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4827

ALLEN JETT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4828 ANTOINE DEPAUL MARSHALL, a/k/a

Chim Chim, a/k/a Antone Depaul

Marshall,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge.

(CR-96-458-WMN)

Submitted: June 25, 2003

Decided: July 31, 2003

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

Anthony D. Martin, SOLOMON & MARTIN, Greenbelt, Maryland;

Thomas T. Ruffin, Jr., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Thomas M.

DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Jamie M. Bennett, Assistant United

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Allen Jett and Antoine DePaul Marshall filed a petition for panel

rehearing and rehearing en banc from the decision of this Court on

May 20, 2003, affirming the sentences imposed by the district court.

See United States v. Jett, No. 02-4827(L) (4th Cir. May 20, 2003). In

the petition for rehearing, Marshall asserts that we erred in applying

a plain error standard of review to his claim that the district court

erred by imposing a five-year term of supervised release when it

resentenced him because no more than a three-year term was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3). Upon a review of the record, we

find that Marshall is correct as to his argument with respect to plain

error, for he did raise this issue at resentencing and on appeal, and we

should have applied a de novo standard of review. See United States

v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 1989). We therefore rehear

the case and issue this opinion. 

Upon de novo review on rehearing, we nevertheless affirm the

holding of the district court based on our holding in United States v.

Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 647 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that the statutory

cap in § 3583 "does not apply to statutes, such as § 841(b)(1)(C),

whose own mandatory minimum periods of supervised release are the

same as, or exceed, the maximum periods provided by § 3583"). Marshall suggests that we overrule Pratt; however, a panel of this court

2 UNITED STATES v. JETT
cannot overrule a prior panel. Mentavlos v. Anderson, 249 F.3d 301,

312 n.4 (4th Cir. 2001). 

With respect to the other issues raised in the petition for rehearing,

we are of opinion these claims are meritless. We therefore affirm the

sentences imposed by the district court. 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 in the

decisional process. 

There has been no request for a poll of the Court on the petition

for rehearing en banc; therefore, the petition for rehearing en banc is

denied. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. JETT 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         15132700
<SECURITIES>                                   32812100
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17965500
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1897900
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               69856800
<PP&E>                                         6565900
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3866500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 78187300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16114600
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       111600
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   78187300
<SALES>                                        45316100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               45316100
<CGS>                                          6889100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40852700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2014500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               837800
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6477900
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (678900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7156800
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7156800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .60
        


</TABLE>