alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Linwood Lee RUFFIN, a/k/a Lenny, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-6283.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2006.

Decided: April 26, 2006.

Linwood Lee Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*205PER CURIAM:

Linwood Lee Ruffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, which the district court properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Ruffin has not made the requisite showing.

Additionally, we construe Ruffin’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. *See United States v. Win-estock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). To obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish that no reasonable fact finder would have found the movant guilty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255 (2000). Ruffin’s claim does not satisfy either of these conditions.

For these reasons, we deny a certificate of appealability, decline to authorize Ruffin to file a successive § 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE )

COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13 CV 1109

)

MURPHY ICE & KOENEMAN, LLP f/k/a )

MURPHY LAW GROUP f/k/a MILLER )

MURPHY LLP, EDWARD L. MURPHY JR., )

and BENJAMIN D. ICE, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

 Plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Company has filed a Complaint invoking this

Court’s diversity jurisdiction [DE 1], but the Court has questions over whether or not this is

proper. According to the Complaint, one of the defendants in this action, Murphy Ice &

Koeneman, LLP, is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the state of

Indiana. Partnerships, like the Defendant, are treated as citizens of every state of which any

partner or member is a citizen. Hart v. Terminex Int’l., 336 F.3d 541, 542 (7th Cir. 2003)

(quoting Market Street Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Frey, 941 F.2d 588, 589 (7th Cir. 1991), which

held that “for purposes of deciding whether a suit by or against a limited partnership satisfies the

requirement of complete diversity of citizenship . . . the citizenship of all the limited partners, as

well as of the general partner, counts”); Indiana Gas Co., Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 314,

317 (7th Cir. 1998) (“General partnerships, limited partnerships, joint stock companies, and

unincorporated membership associations all are treated as citizens of every state of which any

partner or member is a citizen.”). Thus, in order to ascertain whether the parties are actually
diverse in this matter, the citizenship of all of the partners of defendant Murphy Ice &

Koeneman, LLP must be identified. Though the Complaint avers that Defendants Edward

Murphy and Benjamin Ice are partners in Murphy Ice and are Indiana citizens, the Complaint

fails to indicate if Murphy Ice has any other partners (and the name of the firm implies that it

very well might). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to clarify for the Court the citizenship of the

partners of Murphy Ice & Koeneman, LLP, on or before October 31, 2013. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 23, 2013

s/ Philip P. Simon

PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

2
#### Renee Dodge, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Monteleone, J.), dated June 1, 1984, denying her motion to vacate two prior orders and a *728judgment granted on her default, which resulted in dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with a 60-day preclusion order.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff failed to serve a bill of particulars upon the defendant within the 60-day time limit imposed upon her by a conditional order of preclusion, and her action was dismissed. Her subsequent service of an identical summons and complaint upon the defendant did not properly commence a second action but was merely an improper attempt to evade the consequences of the preclusion order *(see, Palmer v Fox,*28 AD2d 968, *affd*22 NY2d 667; *Strange v Montefiore Hosp. & Med. Center,*91 AD2d 507, *affd*59 NY2d 737; *Santangelo v YMCA of Greater N. Y.,*100 AD2d 581). The fact that the original action could have been dismissed as premature pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (5) did not render it a legal nullity. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
(June 17, 1985)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Nathaniel Sims, Petitioner, v Thomas Coughlin, as Commissioner of Cor*1032rectional Services, et al., Respondents.

Application, pursuant to CPLR 7002 (b) (2) for writ of habeas corpus denied *(.People ex rel. Frazier v Coombe,*87 AD2d 904). Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Gina SWIFT, petitioner, v. EAST BATON ROUGE JUVENILE COURT, et al.

No. 12-8784.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 National Animal Disease Center: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Food Safety and Enteric PathogensSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Ames, Iowa National Animal Disease Center Docs





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News
- NADC Seminar Series
- International Symposium
- Proteomics Group
- Production Session Talks and Handouts
- Virtual Conference

Modernizationheadline bar 1 - Modernization
               2 - Page 2
                  3 - Page 3
                  4 - Page 4
                  5 - Page 5
                  6 - Page 6
                  7 - Page 7  Modernization HeaderUSDA's National Animal Disease Center, National Veterinary Services Laboratories, and the Center for Veterinary Biologics are coming together to modernize their facilities and consolidate operations in Ames, Iowa.Background InformationThe result will be USDA's largest animal health center providing world class animal health research, diagnosis and product evaluation. Progress InformationModernization Footer  [1]
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7

                     Next >>


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# L_2008060EN.01002801.xml

| 5.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 60/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 60/28

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 18 February 2008

on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Singapore on certain aspects of air services

(2008/194/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | By a decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements by a Community Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By a decision of 5 June 2003, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with third countries on the replacement of certain provisions in existing bilateral agreements by a Community Agreement.

| (2) | On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the Government of the Republic of Singapore on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the decision of 5 June 2003. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On behalf of the Community, the Commission has negotiated an Agreement with the Government of the Republic of Singapore on certain aspects of air services in accordance with the mechanisms and directives in the Annex to the decision of 5 June 2003.

| (3) | The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2006/592/EC (2). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement was signed on behalf of the Community subject to its possible conclusion at a later date, in accordance with Council Decision 2006/592/EC (2).

| (4) | The Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of the Republic of Singapore on certain aspects of air services is approved on behalf of the Community.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 7(1) of the Agreement.

Done at Brussels, 18 February 2008.

For the Council

The President

D. RUPEL

---

(1)  Opinion of 12 October 2006 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 243, 6.9.2006, p. 21.

2

---
[No. 19888-6-II.

Division Two.

August 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. H.H., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-8-00623-7, Donald H. Thompson, J., entered August 22, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Armstrong and Hunt, JJ.
Order filed, September 16, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00773-CR

____________

EXPARTE STEPHEN KYLE HELMCAMP, Appellant

On Appeal from the County Court

Colorado County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 21,179-A

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due February 21, 2013. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Bonnie Minatra, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Shelter
Properties  V 2000 Third  Quarter  10-QSB and is  qualified  in its  entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000712753
<NAME>                              Shelter Properties V
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 3,076
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                77,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (46,514)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        38,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               36,734
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                               (79)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          38,176
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      12,745
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       9,675
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     2,284
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           3,070
<EPS-BASIC>                                            57.84 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the Company) as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Walter E. Skowronski, President and Director of the
Company, certify, that:



|(1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|              |  |                                            
|------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|July 27, 2005 |  | /S/ WALTER E. SKOWRONSKI                   
|              |  | Walter E. Skowronski President and Director



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Boeing Capital Corporation and will be retained by Boeing Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Fushi Copperweld, Inc. (the "Company"), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: April 4, 2011/s/ Li FuLi Fu

Co-Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)/s/ Joseph J. LongeverJoseph J. Longever

Co-Chief Executive Officer

(principal executive officer)





/s/ Craig H. StudwellCraig H. Studwell

Chief Financial Officer

(principal accounting officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and will be retained by Fushi Copperweld, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13161]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4784-106]


Topsham Hydro Partners Limited Partnership; Notice of Waiver 
Period for Water Quality Certification Application

    On June 15, 2021, Topsham Hydro Partners Limited Partnership 
submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a 
copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water 
quality certification filed with the Maine Department of Environmental 
Protection, in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant 
to 40 CFR 121.6, we hereby notify the Maine Department of Environmental 
Protection of the following:

Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: June 9, 2021
Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One year
Date Waiver Occurs for Failure to Act: June 9, 2022

    If the Maine Department of Environmental Protection fails or 
refuses to act on the water quality certification request by the above 
waiver date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived 
pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1).

    Dated: June 16, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13161 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:15-cr-39-TLS-SLC

)

KAYDEAN GEIST )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Susan

Collins, on April 14, 2016, with the written consents of the Defendant, counsel for the

Defendant, and counsel for the United States of America. The Defendant waived in open

Court prosecution by indictment and consented that the proceedings may be by information

rather than by indictment.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the Defendant under oath

on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States

Attorney and of counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against her to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the Defendant’s waiver of indictment is knowing and voluntary;
(3) that the Defendant understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,

and her right against compelled self-incrimination;

(4) that the Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including

the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the sentencing

guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some

circumstances;

(5) that the plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made

and is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between

the parties;

(6) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(7) that the Defendant understands that her answers may later be used against her in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(8) that there is a factual basis for the Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept both the Defendant’s waiver of indictment and

plea of guilty and that the Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the

Information and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this

Report and Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will

be scheduled before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections

to the Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14)

days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 14th day of April 2016.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2