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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7042

RICHARD A. VANDEGRIFT, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-96-1476-JFM)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 17, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Vandegrift, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard A. Vandegrift, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Vandegrift

v. Beshears, No. CA-96-1476-JFM (D. Md. June 30, 1997). 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
Genesis Lee WHITTED, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6619

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1704/2004

of 30 September 2004         

altering the export refunds on white sugar and raw sugar exported in the natural state fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, undenatured and exported in the natural state, as fixed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1666/2004 are hereby altered to the amounts shown in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 October 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 September 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

(2)OJ L 294, 17.9.2004, p. 7.

----

ANNEX

AMENDED AMOUNTS OF REFUNDS ON WHITE SUGAR AND RAW SUGAR EXPORTED WITHOUT FURTHER PROCESSING APPLICABLE FROM 1 OCTOBER 2004

----

(1)  This amount is applicable to raw sugar with a yield of 92 %. Where the yield for exported raw sugar differs from 92 %, the refund amount applicable shall be calculated in accordance with Article 28(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001.

----
Ramsin Jonathan MALEK, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6706

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a reviewof the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period February 28, 2018 through March 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofFebruary 28, 2018 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-A Owner Trust, tobe conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’sCertificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to suchterms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the26th day of June, 2018.
EX-10.1 AMENDMENT NO. 2-1993 STOCK PURCHASE PLAN



 



Exhibit 10.1



AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO

ROCK-TENN COMPANY

1993 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

(AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1998)



      Pursuant to the power reserved in § 17 of the Rock-Tenn Company 1993
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (as amended and restated effective January 1,
1998), Rock-Tenn Company hereby amends § 5 of the Plan to read as follows:


“Stock Available for Options.


One million shares of Stock shall (subject to shareholder approval) be
added effective January 1, 2004 to the number of shares of Stock then
available under this Plan. All such shares of Stock shall be available
for purchase from Rock-Tenn upon the exercise of options granted under §
9 of this Plan, and any shares of Stock which are subject to options
granted as of the first day of a Purchase Period but which are not
purchased on the related Exercise Date shall again become available for
purchase under this Plan.”


      This Amendment Number Two shall be effective January 1, 2004, but no
shares covered by this Amendment Number Two shall be issued absent the approval
of this Amendment Number Two by Rock-Tenn Company’s shareholders at the 2004
Annual Meeting of such shareholders.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ROCK-TENN COMPANY
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	
By:
	 	/s/ Steven C. Voorhees
	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	
Date:
	 	February 9, 2004
Jacqueline M. KING, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.

No. 19-6629

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1181** 

I N RE : DARRELL LYNN HENDERSON , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 1:07

- cr - 00067

- CG

- M

- 1 )

Submitted : March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Darrell Lynn Henderson , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darrell Lynn Henderson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama and certain prison officials to grant him certain credit toward his sentence . We conclude that Henders on is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U . S
. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Furth er, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. This court’s authority to issue mandamus relief “is only incidental to and in aid of appellate jurisdiction, which Congress ha s given it over district courts
. ” Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cnty. , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Because we lack appellate jurisdiction over the Southern District of Alabama, we lack jurisdiction to issue the requested writ to that court. We also conclude that Henderson has not met the burden required for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the prison offici als because he has not shown that he has no other avenue to seek relief
.3 According ly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny as moot Henderson’s request for an expedited decision. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1456 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1456

  To make improvements to the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2013

Mr. Cole (for himself, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Long, and Mr. Latta) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To make improvements to the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE CHILDREN'S GASOLINE BURN PREVENTION ACT.

    Section 2 of the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act (Public 
Law 110-278; 122 Stat. 2602) is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``child-resistant portable 
        gasoline containers'' and inserting ``portable fuel container 
        standards'';
            (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following 
        new subsection:
    ``(b) Requirements.--Effective 6 months after the date of enactment 
of this Act, each portable fuel container manufactured on or after that 
date for sale in the United States shall conform to the provisions of 
ASTM standards F852-08, F2517-09, F839-83 (2006), F976-08, F926-02 
(2007), as they are by their terms applicable to gasoline, kerosene, or 
diesel portable fuel containers, as issued by ASTM International.'';
            (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``gasoline'' each place 
        that it appears; and
            (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``child resistance 
        requirements of ASTM F2517-05'' and inserting ``provisions of 
        any standard described in subsection (b),''.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal C 149/4 Ju

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 149 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 474 June 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 149

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 474 June 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 149/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 149/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3467- DOW / PIC / WHITE SANDS JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |
| 2004/C 149/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3468- DOW / PIC / PLANET JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 3 |
| 2004/C 149/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3482-Electra / Englefield / GSL) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 4 |
| 2004/C 149/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3470 – First Reserve/ Blackstone / RAG American Coal) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 149/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 149/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3467- DOW / PIC / WHITE SANDS JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

2004/C 149/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3468- DOW / PIC / PLANET JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

3

2004/C 149/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3482-Electra / Englefield / GSL) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

4

2004/C 149/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case No. COMP/M.3470 – First Reserve/ Blackstone / RAG American Coal) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

5

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Travelers Series Fund Inc.:

We consent to the use of our reports dated December 18, 1998, 
with respect to the Portfolios listed below of Travelers Series 
Fund Inc., incorporated herein by reference and to the 
references to our Firm under the headings "Financial Highlights" 
in the Prospectus and "Independent Auditors" in the Statement of 
Additional Information.

Portfolios
Smith Barney Pacific Basin Portfolio
Smith Barney International Equity Portfolio
Smith Barney Large Cap Value Portfolio
Smith Barney Large Capitalization Growth Portfolio
Alliance Growth Portfolio
AIM Capital Appreciation Portfolio
Van Kampen Enterprise Portfolio
GT Global Strategic Income Portfolio
Travelers Managed Income Portfolio
Putnam Diversified Income Portfolio
Smith Barney High Income Portfolio
MFS Total Return Portfolio
Smith Barney Money Market Portfolio


	KPMG LLP


New York, New York
February 23, 1999
Lenore Luann ALBERT, Petitioner v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA

No. 19-6813

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Inconnection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SuperiorEssex Inc. (the “*Company*”)for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the “*PeriodicReport*”), I, Stephen M. Carter, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 
| Date: August 12, 2004 | /s/  Stephen  M. Carter |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                       | Stephen M. Carter                 |
|                       | *Chief Executive Officer*         |

 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Joseph Calvin HEATH.

No. 305P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Joseph Calvin Heath, Pro Se.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Raleigh, for Joseph Calvin Heath.

Mabel Y. Bullock, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of June 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Greenwich Street Municipal Fund Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated July 15, 1998 for Greenwich 
Street Municipal Fund Inc. incorporated herein by reference and to the 
references to our Firm under the headings "Financial Highlights" and 
"Experts" in the Prospectus and "Independent Public Accountants" in 
the Statement of Additional Information.




	KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
September 21, 1998
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-2 for the fiscal year ended December 31,2021, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofApril 18, 2018, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-2 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject ofthe Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: 
/s/ Marc Womack
Name: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2022By: 
/s/ Erik Laney
Name: Erik LaneyTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2022**
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 16, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 10, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 746 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2022-66, CP2022-72.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2022-12948 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
David ROTHENBERG, Petitioner v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-9478

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District denied.
John BERMAN, Petitioner, v. David MODELL.

No. 19-6499

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
John Kenneth SCHIEFER, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-7059

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Jay W. INGALLS v. Robert J. WILSON, M.D., Triangle Orthopaedic Associates, P.A., or Triangle Orthopaedic Associates, P.A. d/b/a Triangle Orthopaedic Associates, P.A., a North Carolina Professional Corporation.

No. 429P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2004.

James P. Cooney, III, Charlotte, Barbara B. Weyher, for Wilson, et al.

Adam Stein, William Simpson, Chapel Hill, Rick I. Suberman, for Ingalls.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th day of August 2004 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the orders of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 17th day of August 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the orders of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2004."
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund Inc. (the Fund) for
the year ended March 31, 2002, we considered its internal
control, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and
to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide
assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
the internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of March 31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Fund, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



New York, New York
May 15, 2002