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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6055

LAMONT DORSEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01249-TSE-MSN)

Submitted: July 31, 2018 Decided: August 30, 2018

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

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Dorsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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, although Dorsey’s 

petition was filed within the one-year limitations period, he has not made the requisite 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right because evaluating the credibility of 

witnesses is a matter entrusted to the trier of fact, and we will not redetermine the credibility 

of a witness on federal habeas review. See Merzbacher v. Shearin, 706 F.3d 356, 364 (4th 

Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
3

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

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Jamie AGUIRRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D03-1731.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 22, 2003.

Jamie Aguirre, Raiford, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

SHARP, W, J.,

Aguirre appeals from the circuit court’s order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), seeking post-conviction relief. The appeal was filed more than thirty days after rendition of the order sought to be appealed and Aguirre failed to respond to this court’s order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b).

Accordingly, we dismiss this cause without prejudice to Aguirre’s filing a petition for a belated appeal in compliance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). *See, e.g., Adams v. State,*801 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); *Broxson v. State,*782 So.2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

DISMISSED without prejudice.

PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Jonathan Leigh HENSLEE

427P09-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Mr. Jonathan Leigh Henslee, Pro Se & Attorney, for Henslee, Jonathan Leigh.

Mr. Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ted Bell, District Attorney, f State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of October 2017 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."

Ervin, J. recused
Exhibit
32.1




SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Francine Dubois, hereby certify that the October
31, 2008 Report on Form 10-Q as filed by iDcentrix, Inc. (the “Company”), which
contains the Company’s financial statements, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such Quarterly
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




Date:  December
      15, 2008
                    /s/
      Francine DuboisFrancine
      DuboisPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive
Officer)
# C_2010221EN.01003502.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2010 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-342/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentrations - Air transport - Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market - Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition - Barriers to entry - Efficiency gains - Commitments)

2010/C 221/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Holdings plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: J. Swift QC, V. Power, A. McCarthy and D. Hull, Solicitors, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and S. Noë, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Aer Lingus Group plc (Dublin) (represented initially by A. Burnside, Solicitor, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and T. Snels, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Burnside and B. van de Walle de Ghelcke)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

and

Ireland (represented by D. O’Hagan and J. Buttimore, acting as Agents, and M. Cush, D. Barniville and N. Travers, lawyers)

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3104 of 27 June 2007 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair Holdings plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and Aer Lingus Group plc; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair Holdings plc to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and Aer Lingus Group plc;

| 3. | Orders Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
Exhibit
32.1





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 Eternal Energy Corp. on Form 10-Q for
the period ending September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Bradley M. Colby, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.
            The
      Report 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





November
22, 2010





/s/ Bradley M. ColbyBradley
      M. ColbyPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                 Percentage          State of
                                                                                     of            Incorporation
            Parent                                Subsidiary                     Ownership        or Organization
--------------------------------          ---------------------------------     --------------    ----------------
<S>                                       <C>                                       <C>            <C>  
PennFed Financial Services, Inc.          Penn Federal Savings Bank                 100%           United States

PennFed Financial Services, Inc.          PennFed Capital Trust I                   100%             Delaware

Penn Federal Savings Bank                 Penn Savings Insurance Agency, Inc.       100%            New Jersey

Penn Federal Savings Bank                 Ferry Development Holding Co.             100%             Delaware


The financial statements of the Registrant are consolidated with those of its subsidiaries.

</TABLE>

                                      93
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4386 

AN ACT 

To allow the Secretary of the Treasury to rely on State 

examinations for certain financial institutions, 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, 
2 

•HR 4386 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Money Remittances 

3 Improvement Act of 2014’’. 

4 SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE AUTHORITY FOR CERTAIN REPORT5 ING REQUIREMENTS. 

6 (a) COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

7 ON MONETARY INSTRUMENT TRANSACTIONS.—Section 

8 5318(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

10 end; 

11 (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para12 graph (7); and 

13 (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(6) rely on examinations conducted by a State 

16 supervisory agency of a category of financial institu17 tion, if the Secretary determines that— 

18 ‘‘(A) the category of financial institution is 

19 required to comply with this subchapter and 

20 regulations prescribed under this subchapter; or 

21 ‘‘(B) the State supervisory agency exam22 ines the category of financial institution for 

23 compliance with this subchapter and regulations 

24 prescribed under this subchapter; and’’. 
3 

•HR 4386 EH

1 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

2 OF OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.—Section 128 of 

3 Public Law 91–508 (12 U.S.C. 1958) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘this title’’ and inserting ‘‘this 

5 chapter and section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insur6 ance Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b)’’; and 

7 (2) by inserting at the end the following: ‘‘The 

8 Secretary may rely on examinations conducted by a 

9 State supervisory agency of a category of financial 

10 institution, if the Secretary determines that the cat11 egory of financial institution is required to comply 

12 with this chapter and section 21 of the Federal De13 posit Insurance Act (and regulations prescribed 

14 under this chapter and section 21 of the Federal De15 posit Insurance Act), or the State supervisory agen16 cy examines the category of financial institution for 

17 compliance with this chapter and section 21 of the 

18 Federal Deposit Insurance Act (and regulations pre19 scribed under this chapter and section 21 of the 

20 Federal Deposit Insurance Act).’’. 

21 (c) CONSULTATION WITH STATE AGENCIES.—In 

22 issuing rules to carry out section 5318(a)(6) of title 31, 

23 United States Code, and section 128 of Public Law 91– 
4 

•HR 4386 EH

1 508 (12 U.S.C. 1958), the Secretary of the Treasury shall 

2 consult with State supervisory agencies. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 6, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4386 

AN ACT 

To allow the Secretary of the Treasury to rely on 

tions, and for other purposes. State examinations for certain financial institu-
# C_2012243EN.01001201.xml

| 11.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2012 — Coats Holdings v Commission

(Case T-439/07) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets for zip fasteners and ‘other fasteners’ - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Coordinated price increases, fixing of minimum prices, customer-sharing, market-sharing and exchange of other commercial information - Evidence - Single and continuous infringement - Limitation period - Rights of the defence - Fines - Guidelines)

2012/C 243/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Coats Holdings Ltd (Uxbridge, Middlesex (United Kingdom)) (represented by: W. Sibree, C. Jeffs, K. O’Connell, and J. Boyce, Solicitors, and D. Anderson QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners) in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Coats Holdings Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Coats Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
# L_2013254EN.01S00301.xml

| 26.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 254/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 254/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
# Official Journal C 75/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 75 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 584 March 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 75

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 584 March 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 075/01 | Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,05 % on 1 March 2015 — Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2015/C 075/02 | Special Report No 1/2015 ‘Inland Waterway Transport in Europe: No significant improvements in modal share and navigability conditions since 2001’ | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 075/01

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: 0,05 % on 1 March 2015 — Euro exchange rates

1

Court of Auditors

2015/C 075/02

Special Report No 1/2015 ‘Inland Waterway Transport in Europe: No significant improvements in modal share and navigability conditions since 2001’

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 075/03 | Call for proposals under the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of the trans-European energy infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for period 2014-20 (Commission Decision C(2015) 1363) | 3 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 075/04 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 4 |
| 2015/C 075/05 | Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 9 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2015/C 075/03

Call for proposals under the multiannual work programme for granting financial aid in the field of the trans-European energy infrastructure under the Connecting Europe Facility for period 2014-20 (Commission Decision C(2015) 1363)

3

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2015/C 075/04

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

4

2015/C 075/05

Publication of an amendment application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs

9

---

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

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4273 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4273

 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
   clinic in The Dalles, Oregon, as the ``Loren R. Kaufman Memorial 
                          Veterans' Clinic''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2014

Mr. Walden (for himself, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Bonamici, and 
Mr. Schrader) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
   clinic in The Dalles, Oregon, as the ``Loren R. Kaufman Memorial 
                          Veterans' Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED 
              OUTPATIENT CLINIC, THE DALLES, OREGON.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient 
clinic located at 704 Veterans Drive, The Dalles, Oregon, shall after 
the date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 
``Loren R. Kaufman Memorial Veterans' Clinic''. Any reference to such 
community-based outpatient clinic in any law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be 
considered to be a reference to the Loren R. Kaufman Memorial Veterans' 
Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
#### Andrew Henry MANN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D03-194.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 3, 2003.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

*574Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Erin K. Zack, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GODERICH, GREEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

*ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION*

PER CURIAM.

Based on appellee State of Florida’s motion for clarification and for withdrawal of mandate, we recall the mandate issued on May 21, 2003, withdraw the opinion rendered the same day and substitute the following in its stead. The sentence is reversed due to the trial court’s failure to justify the sentence of life imprisonment as a violent career criminal. *See Smith v. State,*842 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). The case is remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing by a different judge, pursuant to *Wilson v. State,*845 So.2d 142 (Fla.2003) (the record must rebut any presumption of vindictiveness).

Reversed and remanded.
State v. William Morganherring IV

340A95-5

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 8, 2016

William Morganherring, for Morganherring, William.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th of July 2016 by Defendant for Appeal of Denial of Motion for Supplemental Post-Conviction Discovery:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of December 2016."
# Official Journal C 47A/23 F

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 47A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4823 February 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 47A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4823 February 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Council |
| 2005/C 047A/1 | Public call for applications for the appointment of Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Council

2005/C 047A/1

Public call for applications for the appointment of Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal

1

---

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

EN
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00223 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00224 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00225 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00226 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00227 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00228 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00233 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00234 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00235 - CV NO. 02 - 15 - 00236 - CV

ADAM K. GOLDEN APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

------------ FROM THE 432ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO S . 1293990D, 1296000D , 1293989D, 1296288D , 1286758D, 1276101D, 1323790D, 1323812D, 1323805D, 1323795D

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

### MEMORA NDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 We have considered “ Appellan t ’ s M otion to D ismiss A ppeal.” It is the

court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal s

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. DELIVERED: August 31 , 2015