alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-30684

Summary Calendar

OSCAR HILLS, IV,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WARDEN M. D. CARVAJAL,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:12-CV-3061

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Hills, IV, federal prisoner # 05251-095, appeals the dismissal of 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. He argues that his remedy 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for challenging his wire fraud convictions is inadequate 

and ineffective because this court, after partially granting him a certificate of 

appealability on an issue raised in his § 2255 motion, remanded his case to the 

district court instead of addressing his appeal and reversing his convictions. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 21, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-30684 Document: 00512449951 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2013
No. 13-30684

He also complains that the district court did not address his claim of actual 

innocence. Finally, he argues that it was proper for him to raise his claims in 

a § 2241 petition because he is challenging the fact and duration of his 

unconstitutional confinement. 

As a general rule, a federal prisoner who seeks to collaterally challenge 

the legality of his conviction or sentence must file a § 2255 motion. Padilla v. 

United States, 416 F.3d 424, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2005). Such claims may be raised 

in a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255(e) only if the prisoner 

shows that the § 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality 

of his detention.” § 2255(e). Hills has not made such a showing as he has not 

established that his claims are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme 

Court decision establishing that he was convicted of a nonexistent offense. See 

Padilla, 416 F.3d at 426-27; Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 

(5th Cir. 2001). 

The district court’s dismissal of Hills’s § 2241 petition is AFFIRMED. 

Hills’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

2

 Case: 13-30684 Document: 00512449951 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2013
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 37 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141758) and Amendment No. 380 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08441), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2019,
      with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in
      a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

    /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 20, 2019
Case 1:07-cv-05781-PKC     Document 7      Filed 07/09/2007     Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



I, Michael S. Falk, a duly elected Director of Comdial Corporation, a Delaware corporation, do hereby constitute and appoint Ralph R. Dyer and Carla K. Luke, or either of
them, my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, each with full power of substitution, for me and in my name, place and stead, in any and all capacities (including without limitation, as Director of Comdial), to sign Comdials Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, which is to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, with all exhibits thereto, and any and all documents in connection therewith, hereby granting unto said attorney-in-fact and agent full
power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. This power of attorney
shall not terminate upon my disability.



Dated: 03/26/04



| |  |                    
| |  | -------------------
| |  | /s/ Michael S. Falk
| |  | Michael S. Falk
Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH     Document 3      Filed 06/18/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05779-RJH     Document 3      Filed 06/18/2007     Page 2 of 2
#                                                                         USS Alaska Takes Trophy 5th Time in Decade                                                                    

##### by Chief Petty Officer Ashley Berumen

08 April 2022KINGS BAY, Ga. -- 

            SLIDESHOW | 3 images | 211001-N-IS980-021                    KINGS BAY, Ga. (Oct. 1, 2021) The Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine USS Alaska (SSBN 732) Gold Crew returns to its homeport at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, following a strategic deterrent patrol. The ship is one of six ballistic-missile submarines stationed at the base and is capable of carrying up to 20 submarine-launched ballistic-missiles with multiple warheads. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Ashley Berumen (Released).        

                    211001-N-IS980-021                                            1 of 3                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    150107-N-QO773-069                                            2 of 3                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    150107-N-QO773-009                                            3 of 3                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

Tags:
**submarine**SSBN**Kings Bay**USS Alaska**us strategic command**Omaha Trophy**STRATCOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRiCT OF NEW YORK

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER 21 MC 102 (AKH)

LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER

SITE LITIGATION

WLADYSLAW IWANCZYK (AND WIFE, JADWIGA 07-CV-5362 (AKH)

IWANCZYK),

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Plaintiffs,

-against100 CHURCH LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby enters an appearance as counsel

for Defendants 100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a

SAP1R REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP. in the above-captioned action and all future

correspondence and papers filed or serviced in connection with the above-captioned action are to

be directed to the undersigned.

Dated: New York, New York

September 10, 2007

Yours etc.,

HARRIS BEACH PLLC

Attorneys for Defendant

100 CHURCH LLC and ZAR REALTY

MANAGEMENT CORP. n/k/a SAPIR

REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP.

Is!

Stanley Goos, Esq. (SG-7062)

100 Wall Street

New York, NY 10005

212 687-0100

212 687-0659 (Fax)

Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 8 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on September 10, 2007, I caused the following document

to be electronically via the Courts ECF system:

1. Notice of Appearance (of Defendants 100 Church LLC and Zar Realty

Management Corp. n/k/a Sapir Realty Management Corp.).

The undersigned further certifies that on September 10, 2007, I caused the aforesaid

documents to be served via First Class Mail upon the following:

Paul Napoli, Esq.

Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, P.C.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Law Offices of Gregory J. Cannata

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

Liaison Counselfor Plaint?ffs

Dated: September 10, 2007

James E. Tyrrell, Esq.

Joseph Hopkins, Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

1 Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Thomas Egan, Esq.

Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006

Liaison Counselfor the Defendants

Is!

Stanley Goos

Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 8 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
A92A0662.

#### DOE v. THE STATE.

(422 SE2d 558)

Decided July 31, 1992.

*Cowart & McCullough, Hugh J. McCullough,*for appellant.

*Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, Charles D. Howard, Assis*
      *323
      *tant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*322Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

Appellant Thomas Doe, having pled guilty to the sale of cocaine for an offense alleged to have been committed on May 19, 1989, was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to OCGA § 16-13-30 (d). That statute mandates the enhanced punishment of life imprisonment “upon conviction of a second of subsequent offense” involving intent to distribute controlled substances. On appeal, Doe argued that although this was his second “conviction,” this offense was not “second” in point of time of occurrence. See *Mays v. State,*262 Ga. 90, 91 (414 SE2d 481), which held that “it is not the date of the conviction which determines the applicability of enhanced punishment but the date of the commission of the offense.” However, the record did not support Doe’s contentions for, pursuant to his direction in his notice of appeal, it contained the indictment and sentences pertaining to Tattnall County Indictment No. 89R-140, and it contained no showing in the record of an earlier conviction for an offense which occurred after this one.

Appellant submits a supplementary record certified by the superior court clerk as a true and correct copy of the records of that court. This supplementary record includes Tattnall County Indictment No. 89R-126 alleging sale of cocaine on June 5, 1989, and the conviction and sentence thereon. It is appellant’s burden to designate what shall be included in the record sent up on appeal (see OCGA §§ 5-6-43 (a); 5-6-37), failing which we are not authorized to go outside the record and accept assertions of fact in briefs which are not supported by the record (see *Blane v. State,*195 Ga. App. 504 (393 SE2d 759)), nor may we accept as fact what is asserted by way of argument in a transcript. However, in this case, owing to the gravity of the life sentence given to appellant, we will take notice of the certified copies pertaining to Indictment No. 89R-126 which appellant’s counsel submits. It appears from these documents that appellant was in fact previously convicted and sentenced for a sale of cocaine which occurred June 5, 1989, after the instant sale of cocaine occurring on May 19, 1989. The State has not shown otherwise in rebuttal. Therefore, the imposition of the enhanced punishment under OCGA § 16-13-30 (d) was error. See *Mays v. State,*supra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Beasley and Andrews, JJ., concur.*
Case 1:07-cv-01542-AKH Document 22 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01542-AKH Document 22 Filed 09/15/2008 Page 2 of 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RIKKI A. DAWSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2024-0973

[June 13, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott Suskauer, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 50-2014-CF-003625-AXXX-MB.

Rikki A. Dawson, Carrabelle, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
December 7, 2005

To: Aurora Gold Corporation
3540 West 41st Avenue, Suite 204
Vancouver, BC V6N 3E6

Tel. 604-687-4432
Fax 604-687-4709

Attention: Cameron Richardson
Email: c.richardson@telus.net
       ----------------------


From: Tomas Almeida, Certified Translator

Re: Translation of Memorandum of Understanding regarding Sao Domingos Project



                            Translator's Declaration

I,  Tomas  Almeida,  Certified  Portuguese to English Translator, Member in good
standing  of  the  Society  of  Translators and Interpreters of British Columbia
(STIBC),  which  is  a  member  association  of  the  Canadian  Translators  and
Interpreters Council (CTIC), hereby attest that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, the above-mentioned document is a true, correct and complete translation
of  the  Portuguese  document  presented  to  me.


Signed"Tomas  Almeida"
----------------------



Tomas Almeida
19780 Honeydew Drive
Pitt Meadows, BC V3Y 2S6

Tel. 604-465-6128
Fax 604-465-6129
Cell.604-202-0031
Email: talmeida@telus.net
       ------------------
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-21135

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VALENTIN RODRIGUEZ VENCES,

also known as Flaco,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-575-3 

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Valentin Rodriguez Vences has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent

review of the briefs, Rodriguez Vences’s response, and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Counsel’s
No. 03-21135

-2-

request that Rodriguez Vences be permitted to proceed pro se on

appeal is DENIED.
# CE2011351EN.01016801.xml

| 2.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 351/168 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 351/168

---

Tuesday 6 July 2010Rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway ***II

P7_TA(2010)0257

European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 July 2010 on the Council position at first reading for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (14849/3/2009 – C7-0076/2010 – 2008/0246(COD))

2011/C 351 E/29

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

having regard to the Council position at first reading (14849/3/2009 – C7-0076/2010),

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0816),

having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 71(1) and 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0476/2008),

having regard to its position at first reading (1),

1

having regard to the Commission Communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures’ (COM(2009)0665),

having regard to Article 294(7) and Articles 91(1) and 100(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 July 2009 (2),

2

after consulting the Committee of Regions,

having regard to Rule 66 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0177/2010),

| 1. | Adopts its position at second reading hereinafter set out; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Adopts its position at second reading hereinafter set out;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

---

(1)  Texts adopted of 23.4.2009, P6_TA(2009)0280.

1

(2)  OJ C 317, 23.12.2009, p. 89.

2

---

Tuesday 6 July 2010P7_TC2-COD(2008)0246

Position of the European Parliament adopted at second reading on 6 July 2010 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010)

---
Exhibit 15

    LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION


R&B Falcon Corporation

We  are  aware  that  R&B Falcon Corporation has  incorporated by
reference   in  its   Registration   Statements  No.   333-43475,
333-67755, 333-67757, 333-68101, 333-81179, 333-81181, 333-81381,
333-88839, 333-88841, 333-88843 and 333-42886  its  Form 10-Q for
the  quarter ended June 30, 2000, which includes our report dated
July  31,  2000   covering   the   unaudited  interim   financial
information  contained  therein.  Pursuant to Regulation C of the
Securities  Act  of 1933, that report is not considered a part of
the registration statements  prepared or certified by our Firm or
a report prepared or certified  by our Firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


/s/Arthur Andersen LLP

Houston, Texas
August 11, 2000
Case 1:07-cv-05297-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05297-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05297-AKH Document 7 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### WINTER et al. v. MIDLAND NAT. BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 4, 1922.)

No. 6229.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota.

*1023Grimson & Snowfield and T. D. Pierce, all of Langdon, N. D., for plaintiffs in error. George Hoke, of Minneapolis, Minn., and O. J. Murphy, of Grand Forks, N. D., for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error docketed and dismissed, with costs, pursuant to rule 16 (188 Fed. xi, 109 C. C. A. xi), on motion of defendant in error. See, also, 289 Fed. 1023.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1734 

To amend title 13, United States Code, to prohibit the use of questions 

on citizenship, nationality, or immigration status in any decennial census, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2019 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 13, United States Code, to prohibit the use 

of questions on citizenship, nationality, or immigration 

status in any decennial census, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Full Partici5 pation in the Census Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CENSUS QUESTIONS ON CITIZENSHIP, 

7 NATIONALITY, OR IMMIGRATION STATUS. 

8 Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1734 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub2 section (h); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a ques6 tionnaire or survey used to carry out, or in connection 

7 with, any decennial census of population may not include 

8 any question regarding citizenship, nationality, or immi9 gration status of the respondent, any family member of 

10 the respondent, or any individual living in the respondent’s 

11 household. 

12 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the survey, con13 ducted by the Secretary, commonly referred to as the 

14 ‘American Community Survey’.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40317 Conference Calendar

OSCAR M. FALCON, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LARRY A. JOHNS, Warden, Michael Unit; DENNIS K. BLEVINS, Assistant Warden, Michael Unit; LANDON B. SLIMP, Correctional Officer III, Michael Unit; UNIDENTIFIED, Food Service Manager(s); ALBERT D. NORMAN, Correctional Officer III, Michael Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CV-544

-------------------- October 17, 2000 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Oscar M. Falcon, Jr., Texas prisoner # 537565, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal Falcon seeks to have the district court grant his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice. Falcon seeks on appeal that which has already been granted by the district court in its judgment, the dismissalNo. 00-40317 -2- without prejudice of his complaint. There is no additional relief which this court may grant in this case. “Whether an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates the Article III requirement that there be a live case or controversy.” Bailey v. Southerland , 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987). “In the absence of its being raised by a party, this court is obliged to raise the subject of mootness sua sponte.” Id. There is no controversy to be resolved in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Ex-10.2



 








Exhibit 10.2




Form of First Amendment to

Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement




     This First Amendment to The South Financial Group Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement
between The South Financial Group, Inc. (“Company”) and ___(“Executive”) is made and
entered into this ___day of December, 2005.



     WHEREAS, Company and Executive entered into the Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement
dated ___, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference
(“Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to provide for a change in the form of
payment upon the Executive’s early retirement, as permitted under IRS Notice 2005-1 and other
guidance under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is amended as provided below:



     Section 2.2.2 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows:


2.2.2 Payment of Benefit. The Company shall pay the annual benefit to the Executive in equal
monthly installments for ___months on the first day of each month commencing on the seventh month
following the Executive’s Early Retirement Date. The present value of such monthly payments shall
be equal to the present value of the benefits that would have been payable to the Executive if the
Executive received a monthly benefit for 180 months beginning at the Executive’s Normal Retirement
Age assuming a discount rate equal to the Rate.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and a duly authorized Company officer have signed this First
Amendment to the Agreement.



	 	 	 	 	 
	EXECUTIVE: 	 	COMPANY:

THE SOUTH FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

 
	 	 	By:  	 
	 
	 	 	Title: