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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6095

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MELVIN B. WILKERSON, a/k/a Melvin Coleman,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:02-cr-00217-RAJ-JEB-4; 2:07-cv-00493-RAJ)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 23, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin B. Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Melvin B. Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and

successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilkerson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability 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
# EUR-Lex - 52010DC0300 - EN

*|*

# 52010DC0300

**DRAFT General Budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 /* */**

			*

			*

|| EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.6.2010

COM(2010)300 final

DOCUMENTS

DRAFT General Budget
of the European Union
for the financial year 2011

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/DB_2011/EN/SEC00.pdf

|| EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.6.2010

COM(2010)300 final

DOCUMENTS

DRAFT General Budget
of the European Union
for the financial year 2011

GENERAL STATEMENT OF REVENUE

A. Introduction and financing of the general budget

B. General statement of revenue by budget heading

C. Staff

D. Buildings

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/DB_2011/EN/GenRev.pdf

|| EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 15.6.2010

COM(2010)300 final

DOCUMENTS

DRAFT General Budget
of the European Union
for the financial year 2011

VOLUME 3

SECTION III

COMMISSION

Revenue

Expenditure

Annexes

— Publications Office

— European anti-fraud Office

— European personnel selection Office

— Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements

— Infrastructure and logistics Office, Brussels

— Infrastructure and logistics Office, Luxembourg

— European economic area

— List of budget headings open to candidate countries

— Borrowing-and-lending operations — Borrowing-and-lending operations
guaranteed by the General Budget

— Overall list of changes in the nomenclature between the 2010 budget
and the 2011 draft budget

Staff

— Commission

— Offices

— Bodies set up by the European Union and having legal personality

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/DB_2011/EN/SEC03.pdf
#### David M. KISSI, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. COLDWELL BANKER; David Muchow, Defendants—Appellees. David M. Kissi, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. DK & R Chapter 7 Estate, Ammendable Trust; Richard M. Kremen; DLA Piper of Baltimore, MD; Richard E. Greenberg, Defendants—Appellees.

Nos. 08-1903, 08-1904.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2010.

Decided: April 2, 2010.

David M. Kissi, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Anne Manuelides, Saul Ewing, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; James Patrick Ul-wick, Kramon *&*Graham, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, David Kissi appeals from two orders entered by the district court for Northern District of Ohio transferring his cases to the district court for the District of Maryland. Because appeals from those orders must be filed in the Sixth Circuit, which has already issued an opinion dismissing one of these appeals, we dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1294 (2006).

*363Further, we decline to transfer the appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit as we do not find that such a transfer is in the interest of justice. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006). Accordingly, we deny Kissi’s motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeals. 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.*
In the Senate of the United States, 

January 16, 2019. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 251) entitled ‘‘An Act to extend by two years the 

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program of the 

Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.’’, 

do pass with the following 

AMENDMENTS: 

On page 2, line 10, striking ø‘‘6 years’’¿ and insert 

‘‘5 years and 3 months’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to extend by 

15 months the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program of the Department of Homeland Security, 

and for other purposes.’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R. 251 

AMENDMENTS
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 Peoples Ohio Financial Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ronald
B. Scott, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Rich J. Dutton, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each 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 conditions and results
                  of operations of the Company.

                                               /s/        Ronald B. Scott
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                 Ronald B. Scott
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

                                               September 24, 2004

                                               /s/        Rich J. Dutton
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                 Rich J. Dutton
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

                                               September 24, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2492 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2492

To establish a Federal cost share percentage for the Milk River Project 
                        in the State of Montana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 2, 2019

Mr. Gianforte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a Federal cost share percentage for the Milk River Project 
                        in the State of Montana.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``St. Mary's Reinvestment Act''.

SEC. 2. COST SHARE FOR THE MILK RIVER PROJECT.

    (a) Definition of Milk River Project.--
            (1) In general.--In this Act, the term ``Milk River 
        Project'' means the Bureau of Reclamation project authorized by 
        the Secretary of the Interior on March 14, 1903, under the Act 
        of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), commencing at 
        Lake Sherburne and providing water to a point approximately 6 
        miles east of Nashua, Montana.
            (2) Inclusions.--The term ``Milk River Project'' includes--
                    (A) Swiftcurrent Dike;
                    (B) Lake Sherburne;
                    (C) Nelson and Fresno dams, dikes, and reservoirs;
                    (D) St. Mary, Dodson, Vandalia, and Paradise 
                Diversion dams;
                    (E) Dodson pumping plant; and
                    (F) associated siphons, canals, drops, laterals, 
                and drains.
    (b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the operation, 
maintenance, repair, and replacement of the Milk River Project shall be 
75 percent, which shall not be reimbursable to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.8  DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD SUITE 800 EAST DALLAS, TEXAS
75244  February 17,
2009  EnCana Corporation. 855 - 2 Street SW Suite 1800
Calgary, Alberta T2P2S5  Ladies and Gentlemen:  We
hereby consent to the use of the name DeGolyer and MacNaughton and reference to
our name and our Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2008 on Certain
Properties owned by EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. SEC Case (our Report)
evaluating a portion of EnCana Corporations petroleum and natural gas reserves
as of December 31, 2008, and the information derived from our Report, as
described or incorporated by reference in: (i) EnCana Corporations Annual
Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2008; (ii) EnCana
Corporations registration statements on Form F-3 (File No. 333-150453);
(iii) EnCana Corporations registration statement on Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-124218, 333-13956, and 333-140856); and (iv) EnCana Corporations
registration statements on Form F-9 (File No. 333-149370), filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended as
applicable.  Very truly yours,/s/
  DeGolyer and MacNaughtonDeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
[Cite as State v. Rabatin, 2017-Ohio-7815.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO 

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 -vs- : CASE NO. 2017-P-0036 

MARC C. RABATIN, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016 CR 

00696. 

Judgment: Appeal dismissed. 

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, 

OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). 

Gregory A. Price, 159 South Main Street, Suite 910, Akron, OH 44308 (For 

Defendant-Appellant).

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. 

{¶1} On July 7, 2017, appellant, by and through counsel, filed a notice of 

appeal from a June 6, 2017 judgment entry of the Portage County Court of Common 

Pleas. 

{¶2} Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to be filed no later than July 6, 2017, 

which was not a holiday or a weekend. Thus, his appeal was untimely filed by one day. 

{¶3} App.R. 4(A)(1) states in relevant part: 
 2

{¶4} “* * * [a] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its 

entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” 

{¶5} App.R. 5(A) states: 

{¶6} “(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for 

the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with 

leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: 

{¶7} “(a) Criminal proceedings; 

{¶8} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and 

{¶9} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. 

{¶10} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals 

and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of 

right. * * *.” 

{¶11} In the present case, appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule 

set forth in App.R. 4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, this 

court is without jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Appellant has a remedy under 

App.R. 5(A) to file an untimely appeal from a criminal judgment. 

{¶12} Based upon the foregoing analysis, this appeal is hereby sua sponte 

dismissed as being untimely. 

{¶13} Appeal dismissed. 

DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., 

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J., 

concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

July 15, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00217

- CV

FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF A.S., a Mentally Ill Person,

From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015

- MH

- 0851 Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Th is appeal arise s from an order to compel psychoactive medication s

. This court must advance the disposition of this appeal. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. §§ 574.070(e), 574.108 (West 2010); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2.
The State’s brief was due on July 9, 2015. On the due date, the State filed a motion for extension of time to file its brief until July 24, 2015, for an extension of fifteen days.

The State’s motio n is GRANTED. The State must file its brief w ith this court not later than July 2 4, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE THE STATE’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED.
After the briefs have been filed, this court will advance this appeal on the court’s docket in accordance with the statutory requirements. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. §§ 574.070( e ), 574.108.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Jus tice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.02




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 of ZYTO Corp (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kami J. Howard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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.





/s/ Kami J. HowardKami J. HowardChief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)




November 15, 2010
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee, Review of F32s, K grants and R03s.                    

*Date:*                         June 21-22, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Pooks Hill Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Yujing Liu, Ph.D, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Res., 45 Center Drive, Natcher Building, Rm. 4AN44F, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2372.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 22, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-13340  Filed 5-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2019413EN.01000601.xml

| 9.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Trier v Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-42/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions concerning payments - Services supplied by a company to a bank relating to the operation of cash points)

(2019/C 413/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Trier

Defendant: Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that services supplied to a bank operating cashpoints, consisting in operating and maintaining those cashpoints, replenishing them, installing computer hardware and software necessary to read the data from bank cards, sending a cash withdrawal authorisation request to the bank which issued the bank card used, providing the cash requested and registering withdrawal transactions, do not constitute a transaction concerning payments which is exempt from value added tax for the purposes of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---
Exhibit 99.1  Press Release dated January 27, 2006 with respect to financial results

GREAT NORTHERN IRON ORE PROPERTIES
W-1290 First National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101-1361
(651) 224-2385
FAX (651) 224-2387
GNI
(CUSIP NO. 391064102)

Date:   January 27, 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Trustees of Great Northern Iron Ore Properties (GNI) report
the following financial information:

|                                   | 2005 |  | 2004
|---------------------------------- | ---- |  | ----
|Fourth Quarter ended December 31: 
|Revenues                           |      |  | $   
|Net Income                         |      |  |     
|Basic & Diluted Earnings per Share |      |  |     
|                                  
|
|Year ended December 31:           
|Revenues                           |      |  | $   
|Net Income                         |      |  |     
|Basic & Diluted Earnings per Share |      |  |     

GNI, St. Paul, Minnesota, owns mineral and nonmineral lands on the Mesabi
Iron Range of Minnesota. Income is mainly derived from royalties on iron ore minerals (principally taconite) mined from these
properties which are under lease to major steel producers.

/s/   Joseph S. Micallef

---

-99.1-

---
Order entered February 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01129-CV

ALAN TARRANT, KRISTI TARRANT AND BETHANY KENDRICK, Appellants

V.

BAYLOR SCOTT & WHITE MEDICAL CENTER-FRISCO, STEPHEN COURTNEY,

M.D., EMINENT SPINE, LLC, AND MONITORING CONCEPTS MANAGEMENT, 

LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-12792

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion to exceed word-count limit for brief.

We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received by the Court February 11, 2019 filed as 

of the date of this order. We caution appellants that the aggregate of all their briefs may not 

exceed 27,000 words. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B).

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2174 

To remove fish and wildlife as an authorized purpose of the Missouri River 

Mainstem Reservoir System and to make flood control the highest priority of authorized purposes of such system, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2019 

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To remove fish and wildlife as an authorized purpose of 

the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System and to 

make flood control the highest priority of authorized 

purposes of such system, 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. AUTHORIZED PURPOSES OF THE MISSOURI 

4 RIVER MAINSTEM RESERVOIR SYSTEM. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Fish and wildlife shall not be 

6 an authorized purpose of the Missouri River Mainstem 

7 Reservoir System. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2174 IH

1 (b) PRIORITY.—Flood control shall be the highest 

2 priority of authorized purposes for the Missouri River 

3 Mainstem Reservoir System at all times. 

4 (c) REVISION OF CONTROL MANUAL.—Not later than 

5 90 days after the date of enactment, the Chief of Engi6 neers shall revise the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir 

7 System Master Water Control Manual and any related 

8 regulations to conform with subsections (a) and (b). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS