alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vincent Eugene WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. G. WASHINGTON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-6796.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 17, 2006.

Decided April 27, 2006.

Vincent Eugene Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Eugene Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his request for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We previously reviewed this order in Williams’ prior appeal. *See Williams v. Washington,*144 Fed.Appx 335 (4th Cir.2005) (unpublished). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as du-plicative. 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.*
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 Annual Report of Daybreak Oil and Gas, Inc. on Form 10-K for the
period ending February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the undersigned, in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                       
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

Date: May 28, 2010

|                                                                                              | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|By /s/ JAMES F. WESTMORELAND                                                                  | 
|                                                                                              | 
|James F.
 Westmoreland,
 President, Chief Executive
 Officer                                 
|and interim
 principal finance and accounting officer                                        
|(Principal
 Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
 Officer)

---
**Exhibit23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-159907)and Forms S-8 (No. 333-155804, No. 333-134924, No. 333-103977and 333-125445), of Montpelier Re Holdings Ltd., of our report dated February 26,2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedules, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

Hamilton, Bermuda

February 26,2010

 

----
Dimitrik GOLDEN, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-7317.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2158 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2158

       To extend the duty suspension on Cyclohexadec-8-en-l-one.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

 Mr. Brown of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the duty suspension on Cyclohexadec-8-en-l-one.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CYCLOHEXADEC-8-EN-L-ONE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.37 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Cyclohexadec-8-en-l-one) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2008088EN.01000201.xml

| 9.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4921 — CDC/Groupe Moniteur/Achatpublic.Com)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 88/02)

On 13 March 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4921. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4921. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
---

March 30, 2012

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------
|    |                                               
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                    
|    |                                               
|    | Consent of Expert                             

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2011, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, Robert Sinclair Morrison, MAusIMM (CP), P.Geo., hereby
consent to the use of my name in connection with reference to my involvement in
the preparation of the following technical report (the "Technical Report"):

- Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated
  February 17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual Report.

Yours truly,

Original document signed by Robert Morrison

|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|Robert Sinclair Morrison, B.Sc., Ph.D., MAusIMM (CP),
      P.Geo.
|                                                                  
|Wardrop, a Tetra Tech Company                                     

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie R. CARTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-2008.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

April 27, 2006.

Joel Hammerman, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Linda Amdur, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

A jury convicted Eddie Carter on two counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. *573§ 2113(a), and one count of brandishing a firearm in the commission of a bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii). The district court sentenced Carter to 272 months of imprisonment. Thereafter, we affirmed the conviction and the district court’s guideline calculation. *See United States v. Carter,*410 F.3d 942, 948-56 (7th Cir. 2005). Additionally, we ordered a limited remand under *United States v. Paladino,*401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), so that the district court could state on the record whether the sentence remains appropriate now that *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), has limited the guidelines to advisory status. *See Carter,*410 F.3d at 953-54, 956.

In reply, after reviewing the appropriate considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court stated it would have imposed the same sentence had it known that the guidelines were advisory. Carter did not respond to our invitation to file arguments concerning the appropriate disposition of the appeal in light of the district court’s limited remand decision. The government did respond, and it requests that we affirm.

The appropriate guideline range for the two bank robbery counts was 188-235 months. The district court’s sentence on these counts was 188 months. The additional 84 months was a mandatory statutory penalty under § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) for the third count of brandishing a firearm. Thus, the 272-month sentence was the lowest possible sentence under the applicable guideline and statutory provisions. We do not see any reason why Carter’s sentence would be deemed unreasonable in post*-Booker*practice. The judgment of the district court therefore is AFFIRMED.
# C_2008108EN.01000501.xml

| 29.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4949 — Sonepar/Hagemeyer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 108/03)

On 8 February 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4949. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4949. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2128 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cosmetic bags with a flexible outer 

surface of reinforced or laminated polyvinyl chloride (PVC). 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cosmetic bags with a 

flexible outer surface of reinforced or laminated polyvinyl 

chloride (PVC). 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. COSMETIC BAGS WITH A FLEXIBLE OUTER SUR4 FACE OF REINFORCED OR LAMINATED POLY5 VINYL CHLORIDE (PVC). 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 
2 

•HR 2128 IH 

‘‘ 9902.42.02 Cosmetic bags with a flexible 

outer surface of reinforced 

or laminated polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (provided for in 

subheading 4202.12.20) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1246** 

WILLIAM GROSS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Stephanie A. Gallagher , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 02416

- SAG )

Submitted : July 19, 2013 Decided: July 31, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Elliott Andalman, ANDALMAN & FLYNN, P.C., Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, f or Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Gross appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Gross supplemental security income under the Social Security Act

. * We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. See 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); Johnson v. Barnhart , 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Having thoroughly r eviewed the parties’ briefs , the administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Gross v. Astrue , No. 1:10

- cv - 02416

- SAG (D. Md. Dec. 28, 2012). We dispense with oral argu ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (200 6 ).
Order issued January 12 , 201 5 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________

No. 05

- 1 4

- 0 0 155

- CR

No. 05

- 14

- 00156

- CR

No. 05

- 14

- 00157

- CR

No. 05

- 14

- 00158

- CR

________________________________________

RANDY ALEXANDER REYES , Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Myers

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the August 5, 2014 motion of

John Tatum for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of

the Court to remove John Tatum as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Cler k of

the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Randy Alexander Reyes,

TDCJ No. 1909046, Roach Unit, 15845 FM 164, Childress, Texas, 79201.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS

JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

10:00 a.m. EDT, Thursday, June 24, 2021.

# PLACE: 

Virtual meeting.

# STATUS: 

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

                        Examinations and enforcement matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.cftc.gov/​.*

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Dated: June 15, 2021.

Christopher Kirkpatrick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-12975 Filed 6-15-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
#### Robert Marker et al., Appellants, v Gerald Garber et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages, *inter alia,*for wrongful eviction, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated November 16, 1983, which granted defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment of the same court (Lockman, J.), dated October 6, 1983.

Order modified by deleting the provision requiring service of an amended complaint and answer. As so modified, order affirmed, with costs to defendants. The answer which was attached to the motion to vacate the default judgment shall be deemed the answer in this case and shall be deemed to have been served.

The totality of the circumstances in this case justified vacatur of the default. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lester KIRBY, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-4525.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 3, 2004.

Gregory J. Ramage, Law Offices of Gregory Ramage, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*140Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Robert Lester Kirby, Jr., was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Kirby to a total imprisonment term of 138 months of imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release.

Kirby’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether Kirby received ineffective assistance of counsel. Kirby raises the same issue in his pro se supplemental brief. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Kirby’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be brought, if at all, in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), because the record in this appeal does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel. *See United States v. King,*119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir.1997).

In accordance with the requirements of *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Kirby’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

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.

*AFFIRMED*
EXHIBIT 17.1


RESIGNATION  OF DAVID  W.MASON AS AN OFFICER AND  DIRECTOR  OF  NATIONAL  ENERGY
SERVICES COMPANY, INC., a Nevada Corporation



I, David W. Mason, hereby resign all my capacities as an officer and director of
NATIONAL ENERGY SERVICES  COMPANY,  INC., a Nevada  Corporation  (the "Company")
effective  February 20, 2004. My  resignation  is not because of a  disagreement
with the Company on any matter relating to the Company's operations, policies or
practices.  Further, I release the Company from any and all obligations they may
have to me as well as from any and all  claims  (asserted  or not  asserted)  to
date.




/s/ David W. Mason                                      2.20.04
------------------------------------------      --------------------------------
David W. Mason                                          Date