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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LLOYD MACK ROYAL, III, a/k/a Blyss, a/k/a B, a/k/a Furious,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:09-cr-00048-TDC-1; 8:19-cv-03359-TDC)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 24, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lloyd Mack Royal, III, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Evans Chandler, Christopher ChenHsin Wang, Appellate Section, Civil Rights Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lloyd Mack Royal, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Royal has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Royal’s 

motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
AMRESCO, INC.
                  Subsidiaries and Affiliates

AMRESCO, INC.
11 LASALLE, LLC
AFC EQUITIES, INC.
AFC EQUITIES, L.P.
AFC EQUITIES MANAGEMENT, INC.
ACLC FUNDING CORPORATION
ALPINE, INC.
AMREIT I, INC.
AMRESCO 1994-N2, INC.
AMRESCO ADVISORS, INC.
AMRESCO ATLANTA INDUSTRIAL, INC.
AMRESCO BUILDERS GROUP  INC.
AMRESCO CMF, INC.
AMRESCO CANADA INC.
AMRESCO CAPITAL, L.P.
AMRESCO CAPITAL CONDUIT CORPORATION
AMRESCO CAPITAL LIMITED, INC.
AMRESCO CAPITAL TRUST, INC.
AMRESCO COMMERCIAL LENDING CORPORATION
AMRESCO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE FUNDING I CORPORATION
AMRESCO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE FUNDING, L.P.
AMRESCO CONSOLIDATION CORP.
AMRESCO EQUITY INVESTMENTS, INC.
AMRESCO EQUITY INVESTMENTS II, INC.
AMRESCO EQUITIES CANADA INC.
AMRESCO FINANCIAL I, INC.
AMRESCO FINANCIAL I, L.P.
AMRESCO FUNDING CANADA INC.
AMRESCO FUNDING CORPORATION
AMRESCO FUNDING INVESTORS, INC.
AMRESCO FUNDING MANAGEMENT, INC.
AMRESCO FUNDING OF GEORGIA, L.P.
AMRESCO FUNDING MID-ATLANTIC, INC.
AMRESCO FUNDING PACIFIC, INC.
AMRESCO-INSTITUTIONAL, INC.
AMRESCO INVESTMENTS, INC.
AMRESCO LEASING CORPORATION
AMRESCO-MBS I, INC.
AMRESCO-MBS II, INC.
AMRESCO-MBS III, INC.
AMRESCO MANAGEMENT, INC.
AMRESCO MID ATLANTIC, INC.
AMRESCO MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC.
AMRESCO MORTGAGE CAPITAL LIMITED-I, INC.
AMRESCO MORTGAGE SERVICES LIMITED, INC.
AMRESCO NEW ENGLAND, INC.
AMRESCO NEW ENGLAND, L.P.
AMRESCO NEW ENGLAND II, INC.
AMRESCO NEW ENGLAND II, L.P.
AMRESCO NEW HAMPSHIRE, INC.
AMRESCO NEW HAMPSHIRE, L.P.
AMRESCO OVERSEAS, INC.
AMRESCO PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS, INC.
AMRESCO PRINCIPAL MANAGERS I, INC.
AMRESCO PRINCIPAL MANAGERS II, INC.
AMRESCO RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL MARKETS, INC.
AMRESCO RESIDENTIAL CREDIT CORPORATION
AMRESCO RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION
AMRESCO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, INC.
AMRESCO RESIDENTIAL SECURITIES CORPORATION
AMRESCO RETAIL VENTURES I LIMITED
AMRESCO RETAIL VENTURES II LIMITED
AMRESCO RHODE ISLAND, INC.
AMRESCO SECURITIES, INC.
AMRESCO SERVICES, L.P.
AMRESCO SERVICES CANADA INC.
AMRESCO TEXAS, INC.
AMRESCO UK HOLDINGS LIMITED
AMRESCO UK LIMITED
AMRESCO UK VENTURES LIMITED
AMRESCO JERSEY VENTURES LIMITED
AMRESCO LEASING CORPORATION
AMRESCO VENTURES, INC.
ASSET MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION COMPANY
BCS ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
BCS MANAGEMENT CORP. I
BEI 1992-N1, INC.
BEI 1993-N3, INC.
BEI 1994-N1, INC.
BEI MULTI-POOL, INC.
BEI PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS, INC.
BEI PORTFOLIO MANAGERS, INC.
BEI REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC.
BEI SANJAC, INC.
CLC FUNDING CORP.
COMMONWEALTH TRUST DEED SERVICES, INC.
ENT MIDWEST, INC.
ENT NEW JERSEY, INC.
ENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
EXPRESS FUNDING, INC.
GRANITE EQUITIES, INC.
HOLLIDAY FENOGLIO FOWLER, L.P.
LIFETIME HOMES, INC.
OAK CLIFF FINANCIAL, INC.
OLD MIDLAND HOUSE LIMITED
SAVE-MORE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.
SCOTTSDALE INN LLC
QUALITY FUNDING, INC.
WHITEROCK INVESTMENTS, INC.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 33-54940) of McDermott Incorporated and in the related Prospectus of our
report dated May 19, 1998, except for the fifth and sixth paragraphs of Note 11,
as to which the date is June 1, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of McDermott Incorporated, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended March 31, 1998.



                                 ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
June 12, 1998
Case 1:07-cr-00553-BSJ Document 20 Filed 07/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
CET.C.

205 JUN 24 PH 2 35

June 24, 2005

Ms. Jean A. Webb

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Center

1155 21" Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Reference File # 2562.01
Rule Certification
Dear Ms. Webb:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT®) hereby
submits the following:

- Amendments to Rulebook Appendix 4E, Section 1 as indicated in the attached text
(additions underlined; deletions bracketed).

Appendix 4E sets forth Exchange financial requirements for firms to be regular for delivery
against CBOT agricultural contracts. Under the referenced revisions, the Financial Compliance
Committee could grant exemptions to the working capital requirement for regular firms having
adequate net worth levels and high ratings from a recognized credit rating agency.

The CBOT intends to implement these amendments one day after the Commission’s receipt of
this submission.

There were no opposing views concerning these amendments.

The CBOT certifies that these amendments comply with the Commodity Exchange Act and the
tules thereunder.

Sincerely,

Paul J. Draths
Vice President and Secretary

B062105


Additions are underlined.
Deletions are [bracketed].

Appendix 4E- MINIMUM FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL
REGULARITY

The minimum financial requirements for firms which are regular to deliver agricultural products
are:

1. Working Capital- (current assets excluding current receivables from affiliates/parent
company less current liabilities) must be greater than or equal to $2,000,000 or $1,000,000 for
firms regular for delivery in Denatured Fuel Ethanol futures. All current assets must be readily
marketable. Firms which do not have $2,000,000 ($1,000,000 for ethanol) in Working Capital
must deposit with the Exchange [$5,000 per contract which it is regular to deliver, up to a
maximum of $2,000,000 ($1,000,000 for ethanol), less SEC haircuts, as specified in SEC Rule
15c3-1(c )(2)(vi), (vii), (viii) plus 3% in the event of liquidation.] treasury securities or other
collateral deemed acceptable to the Exchange, in such sum and subject to such conditions as the
Exchange may require. Any such sums shall be reduced by SEC haircuts, as specified in SEC
Rule 15c3-1(c )(2)(vi), (vii), (viii). If the warehouseman/shipper deposits treasury securities, it
must execute a security agreement on a form prescribed by the Exchange. The Financial
Compliance Committee may grant an exemption from the working capital requirement described
above, in its sole discretion
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION



I, Paul W. Miller, certify that:

1)       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Claimsnet.com
         inc.;

2)       Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period
         covered by this report;

3)       Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other
         consolidated financial information included in this report, fairly
         present in all material respects the consolidated financial condition,
         results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,
         the periods presented in this report;

4)       The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
         establishing and maintaining disclosure control and procedures (as
         defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) ):

         a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
                  such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
                  our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
                  to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
                  made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
                  during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
                  control and procedures and presented in this report our
                  conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
                  and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
                  report based on such evaluation; and

5)       The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
         on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
         reporting, to the registrant's independent registered public accounting
         firm and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
         persons performing the equivalent function):

         a)       all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
                  design or operation of internal control over financial
                  reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect the
                  registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
                  financial information; and

         b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
                  or other employees who have a significant role in the
                  registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 19, 2004

/s/ Paul W. Miller

Paul W. Miller
Chief Financial Officer
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0212 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0212

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (COM(2003)0739 - C5-0642/2003 - 2003/0300(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 124 E , 15/05/2006 P. 0095 - 0115 *

P6_TA(2005)0212

Energy end-use efficiency ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on energy end-use efficiency and energy services (COM(2003)0739 — C5-0642/2003 — 2003/0300(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2003)0739) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0642/2003),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0130/2005),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, April 30, 2001, 8 a.m. to May 1, 2001, 5 p.m., Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 19, 2001, 66 FR 20151.                

The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 24 and Friday, May 25, 2001. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: May 1, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-11599  Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 182 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 182

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend the authorization for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory 
                              Commission.

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

SECTION 1. CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE ADVISORY COMMISSION.

    Effective September 26, 2018, section 8(a) of Public Law 87-126 (16 
U.S.C. 459b-7(a)) is amended in the second sentence by striking 
``2018'' and inserting ``2028''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 20, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 182

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To extend the authorization for the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory 
                              Commission.
```
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 26-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 24 of 24
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross Appellant, v. Samim ANGHAIE, Sousan Anghaie, Defendants-Appellants Cross Appellees.

No. 12-10086.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 7, 2013.

Robert G. Davies, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Pensacola, FL, Stephen M. Kunz, *867Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Terry Flynn, Robert D. Stinson, Tallahassee, FL, Pamela C. Marsh, Gregory Patrick McMahon, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee Cross Appellant.

Lloyd Lowell Vipperman, Jr., Law Office of Lloyd L. Vipperman, Jr., Stephen N. Bernstein, Stephen N. Bernstein, PA, Gainesville, FL, for Defendants-Appellants Cross Appellees.

Before CARNES, WILSON, and EBEL,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable David M. Ebel, United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Having studied the briefs and the relevant parts of the record, and having heard oral argument in this case, we have concluded that there is no merit to the Appellants’ arguments that the evidence was insufficient to convict them on the counts for which they were convicted. We have also concluded that there is no merit to the Appellee’s cross-appeal arguments that the district court erred in the amount of the forfeiture it ordered Appellants to pay or in failing to order them to pay restitution.

We are convinced, however, that the district court should conduct an evidentiary hearing into the Appellants’ claim regarding the alleged conversation between juror Moss and Dr. Abdol Chini about Appellant Samim Anghaie. We leave to the district court’s discretion the procedural question of whether to hear testimony from Dr. Chini before deciding if it needs to hear testimony from juror Moss, or to hear testimony from both of them in any event. We imply no view about how the district court should decide the issue once it conducts the evidentiary inquiry, nor do we imply any view about whether Appellant Sousan Anghaie could be entitled to any relief based on this claim if the alleged conversation was not about her.

The judgment in this case is VACATED AND REMANDED for the limited purpose of an evidentiary hearing into the allegations that juror Moss discussed the case with Dr. Chini before the trial was complete and for a decision on the issue or issues involved in that claim.
EX-10.10





 Exhibit 10.10 

Form of Notice of Option Grant 

GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES INC. 

2018 STOCK AND INCENTIVE PLAN 

NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT 

You have been granted the following option to purchase Subordinate Voting Shares of Green Thumb Industries Inc. (the “Company”):

  

					
	Name of Optionee:	 	  
	 	
			
	Total Number of Shares Granted:	 	  
	 	
			
	Type of Option:	 	Non-Qualified Stock Option	 	
			
	 Exercise Price Per Share:
	 	CDN$                                     
                                         
                          	 	
			
	Date of Grant:	 	  
	 	
			
	Vesting Terms:	 	  
	 	
			
	Expiration Date:	 	  
	 	

 By your signature and the signature of the Company’s representative below, you and the Company agree that this option is
granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the Company’s 2018 Stock and Incentive Plan and the attached Stock Option Agreement, both of which are made a part of this document. 

 

							
	OPTIONEE:	  		 	GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES INC.
				
	  
	  		 	By: 	 	
                     
                   

				
	  
	  		 	Title:	 	  

	Print Name
#### Helena Stone, Respondent, v Richard Stone, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered September 2, 1988, as denied his motion, *inter alia,*to direct the plaintiff to return all sums paid to her for maintenance arid mortgage payments since April 1987, to stay further payments of interim maintenance, and for an award of counsel fees for the defense of the plaintiff wife’s prior cross motion and for the prosecution of the instant motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As we have previously stated, appeals from orders granting pendente lite relief are disfavored as it is clearly more expedient and in the interests of judicial economy to proceed promptly to trial *(see, Berger v Berger, 125*AD2d 285). In this case the affidavits submitted presented extremely conflicting views of the financial situation of the plaintiff wife. A speedy trial would permit a prompt and more detailed examination of the facts for the purposes of making an award, if any, of permanent maintenance *(see, Woram v Gilliam,*78 AD2d 796).

We find that, contrary to the husband’s contention, it was not indisputably shown that the wife committed perjury in respect to her financial situation. No affidavit was submitted by an accountant to explain the disbursements attributed to the wife or to dispute her claimed income. In any event, the husband would not be entitled to restitution or recoupment of the payments made pursuant to the modified temporary maintenance award *(see, Rodgers v Rodgers,*98 AD2d 386; *Rosenberg v Rosenberg,*42 AD2d 590; *Matter of Klein v Klein,*58 AD2d 811; *Grossman v Ostrow,*33 AD2d 1006). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.