alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN RE C.D.L-H.

No. COA06-1262.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 20, 2007.

Certification Date March 12, 2007.

Appeal from Guilford (03J412, 05J81).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7416

GRAYLING BROWN-EL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RON BROWN, Trooper,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:11-cv-01071-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Grayling Brown-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Grayling Brown-El seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Brown-El 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
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
In the Matter of S.L.G., Minor Child. appealed by Father-Respondent.

No. 70P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Richard E. Jester, for Father.

Jeffrey Jenkins, for Halifax County DSS.

Monique Skinner-Dixon, Attorney Advocate, for Guardian ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of February 2007 by Respondent (Father) 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 11th day of October 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent (Father) on the 5th day of February 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision 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 11th day of October 2007."
STATE v. GRAVES.

No. COA06-1442.

Court of appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 18, 2007.

Certification Date October 8, 2007.

Appeal from Alamance (05CRS54818).

Case reported without published opinion No error.
John P. REIDY and wife, Terri L. Reidy v. WHITEHART ASSOCIATION, INC.

No. 445P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Nelson G. Harris, for Reidy.

Hope Derby Carmichael, Brian S. Edlin, Raleigh, Jessica E. Cooley, for Whitehart Association.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 648 S.E.2d 265.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Plaintiffs on the 11th day of September 2007 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of October 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of September 2007 by Plaintiffs 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 11th day of October 2007."
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Boston Properties, Inc., the sole general partner of Boston Properties Limtied
Partnership (the Company), hereby certifies to my knowledge that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification shall not be deemed filed for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

Date: March 1, 2007



/s/    DOUGLAS T.
LINDEDouglas T. LindeChief Financial Officer of Boston Properties, Inc., sole general partner of Boston Properties Limited Partnership
# European Union (Approvals) Act 2013 (repealed)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# European Union (Approvals) Act 2013 (repealed)

# 2013 CHAPTER 9

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Act repealed (4.7.2018) by European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (c. 16), s. 25(4), **Sch. 9** (with s. 19, Sch. 8 para. 37); S.I. 2018/808, reg. 3(i)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3425 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3425

To make effective the proposed rule of the Food and Drug Administration 
      relating to sunscreen drug products, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2008

 Mr. Dodd (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Clinton, 
and Mr. Biden) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make effective the proposed rule of the Food and Drug Administration 
      relating to sunscreen drug products, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Sunscreen Labeling Protection Act of 
2008'' or the ``SUN Act''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR RULE RELATING TO SUNSCREEN DRUG PRODUCTS FOR 
              OVER-THE-COUNTER HUMAN USE.

    Notwithstanding subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of title 
5, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Administrative Procedure 
Act'') and any other provision of law, the proposed rule issued by the 
Commissioner of Food and Drugs entitled ``Sunscreen Drug Products for 
Over-the-Counter Human Use; Proposed Amendment of Final Monograph'', 72 
Fed. Reg. 49070 (August 27, 2007), shall take effect on the date that 
is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, unless such 
Commissioner issues the final rule, which includes formulation, 
labeling, and testing requirements for both ultraviolet B (UVB) and 
ultraviolet A (UVA) radiation protection, before such effective date.
                                 <all>
```
In the Matter of B.M.

No. 509P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 6, 2007.

E. Marshall Woodall, Lillington, for Harnett County DSS.

Peter Wood, for Mother.

Richard Croutharmel, for Father.

Pamela N. Williams, for Guardian ad Litem.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of October 2007 by Petitioner for Temporary Stay:

"Motion for Stay Dissolved by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of December 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED
 SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO  SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE FOOTNOTES
THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               15
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    45,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 48,358
<PP&E>                                            5,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   75,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            73,449
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       2,160
<COMMON>                                             24
<OTHER-SE>                                      (9,626)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     75,893
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 28,937
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    29,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,984)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,987)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,149)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Derrick Andre POKE.

No. 434P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Daniel R. Pollitt, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Derrick Andre Poke.

Joan Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*539*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 17th day of August 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 17th day of August 2006 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 3rd day of May 2007."
CLEGG v. CITY OF DURHAM

No. COA06-700

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Durham (05CVS1931).

Case reported without published opinion. Affimred.
IN RE J.G.

No. COA07-1026.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 5, 2008.

Certification Date February 25, 2008.

Appeal from Harnett (04J231).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Frost, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 423]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), rendered July 15, 2002, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*428We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

The next meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 15 September 2005 at 9 a.m. in the Commission's offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion affecting the appearance of Washington, DC, may include buildings, parks and memorials.

                    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:                     *http://www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated in Washington, DC, 25 August 2005.

Thomas Luebke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-17322 Filed 8-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      14,491,509
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,506,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      64,465,916
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,223,345
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              92,469,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  91,240,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                92,469,046
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,656,333
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,073,679
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (387,914)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (387,914)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (387,914)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                   ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION

          CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF
                CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


In connection with the report of Compton Petroleum  Corporation (the "Company")
on the Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  the  best  of my
knowledge:

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.


DATED this 23rd day of March, 2006.


/s/ Ernie G. Sapieha
-------------------------------
Ernie G. Sapieha
President & Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer),
Compton Petroleum Corporation
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 2005)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 50949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17246]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 50949]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2005-32 of August 17, 
                2005

                
Continuation of U.S. Drug Interdiction Assistance 
                to the Government of Colombia

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State[and] the 
                Secretary of Defense

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 1012 
                of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
                Year 1995, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2291-4), I hereby 
                certify, with respect to Colombia, that (1) 
                interdiction of aircraft reasonably suspected to be 
                primarily engaged in illicit drug trafficking in that 
                country's airspace is necessary because of the 
                extraordinary threat posed by illicit drug trafficking 
                to the national security of that country; and (2) that 
                country has appropriate procedures in place to protect 
                against innocent loss of life in the air and on the 
                ground in connection with such interdiction, which 
                shall at a minimum include effective means to identify 
                and warn an aircraft before the use of force is 
                directed against the aircraft.

                The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to 
                publish this determination in the Federal Register and 
                to notify the Congress of this determination.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, August 17, 2005.

[FR Doc. 05-17246
Filed 8-26-05; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
STATE v. BATEMAN.

No. COA07-37.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 4, 2007.

Certification Date September 24, 2007.

Appeal from Henderson (04CRS56445).

Case reported without published opinion No error.
NOTE
  Company DCFS USA
LLC Lender Credit Agreement
 Section 2.04(f)
   [Remainder of page left blank intentionally; signature page follows.]




---



##### 



SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.By:
    /s/ DAVID P. COSPERName:
    David P. CosperTitle:
    Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



LOANS AND PAYMENTS WITH RESPECT THERETO
 Amount ofPrincipal or
    
    OutstandingEnd of
    
    Interest
    
    PrincipalType of
    
    Amount of
    
    Interest
    
    Paid This
    
    Balance
    
    NotationDate
    
    Loan Made
    
    Loan Made
    
    Period
    
    Date
    
    This Date
    
    Made By
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Marines Trinidad, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 108]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 15, 2004, which dismissed claimant’s appeal from a decision of an Administrative Law Judge as untimely.

By decision dated and mailed May 4, 2004, an Administrative Law Judge sustained an initial determination ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct. The record confirms that claimant appealed this decision by a written notice which she did not mail until June 1, 2004. During a hearing to determine the timeliness of the appeal, claimant admitted to receiving the May 4, 2004 decision shortly after it was mailed and acknowledged that it contained a notice advising her that she had 20 days in which to appeal, but she delayed requesting an appeal due to her ongoing job search and *1209mistaken belief that she had more time to appeal. Inasmuch as claimant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the strict 20-day statutory time period set forth in Labor Law § 621 (1), we find no reason to disturb the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision dismissing claimant’s appeal as untimely *(see Matter of Tomao [Commissioner of Labor],*21 AD3d 638 [2005]; *Matter of Popescu [Commissioner of Labor],*16 AD3d 757, 758 [2005]; *Matter of Plotnik [Commissioner of Labor],*13 AD3d 700, 701 [2004]). We need not, therefore, address claimant’s arguments relating to the underlying merits of the denial of her application for benefits *(see id.).*

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.