alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7513** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LUIS FELIPE MANGUAL, SR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Di strict of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus , District Judge. ( 8:04

- cr - 00235

- RWT

- 25; 8:08

- cv - 02657

- RWT )

Submitted : May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Luis Felipe Mangual, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Luis Felipe Mangual, Sr., seeks to ap peal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of
ap pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jur ists 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 procedu ral grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the recor d and conclude that Mangual 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 materials3 b efore the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
#### N. L. Hutchins, Jr., *et al.,*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*S. H. Baker *et al.,*defendants.

(By two judges.) If the bill of exceptions be not certified to be the true original, the cause will be dismissed. (R.) 16th January, 1872.

Practice in the Supreme Court. From Milton.

This cause was dismissed because there was no certificate -that the bill of exceptions sent up with the certified record -was the true original bill of exceptions.

G. 1ST. Lester ; T. M. Peeples, for plaintiffs in error.

.H. P. Bell ; Simmons *&*Howell, for defendants.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40332

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO GUTIERREZ-PENA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:10-CR-1221-1

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederalPublic Defender appointed to represent Mario Gutierrez-Pena

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Gutierrez-Pena has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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

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

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-40332 Document: 00511640638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
ERICK LORRAY

ARMSTRONG

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1685

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed July 18, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Elijah Smiley , Judge

.

Erick Lorray Armstrong, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
STATE of North Carolina v. Maggie Dawn SMITH

No. COA17-1184

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

NO PREJUDICIAL ERROR.
#### Fidelity Union Trust Co., respondent, *v.*Union Cemetery Association, appellant.

[Argued October 22d, 1946.

Decided January 17th, 1947.]

*Mr. Israel B. Greene*and *Mr. William H. Speer,*for the appellant.

*Messrs. Hood, Lafferty*¿6 *Emerson, Mr. Charles Danzig, Mr. Samuel Kaufman*and *Mr. Harry A. Augenbliclc,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Stein, and reported at *138 N. J. Eq. 50.*

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Parker, Bodine, Donges, Heiier, Perskie, Colie, Eastwood, Wells, Raeeerty, Dill, Freund, McGeehan, McLean, JJ. 14.

*For reversal*— None.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 57924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19798]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Company Acceptable on Federal Bonds: National Farmers 
Union Property and Casualty Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplemental No. 4 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570; 2005 Revision, published July 1, 2005, at 70 FR 38502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable 
surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued to the following Company under 
31 U.S.C. 9304 to 9308. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate 
their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2005 Revision, on 
page 38529 to reflect this addition:
    National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Company Business 
Address: 5619 DTC Parkway, Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111-3136. 
Phone: (303) 337-5500. Underwriting limitation b/:$9,091,000. Surety 
licenses c/:AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DC, GA, HI, ID, IA, KS, KY, ME, MS, MO, 
MT, NE, NV, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI. 
Incorporated in: Colorado.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR part 
223). A list of qualified companies are published annually as of July 1 
in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and 
other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570. A hard copy may be purchased from the 
Government Printing Office (GPO) Subscription Service, Washington, DC, 
Telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the 
following stock number: 769-004-05219-0.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: September 23, 2005.
Teresa G. Casswell,
Acting Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial 
Management Service.
[FR Doc. 05-19798 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4934 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4934

 To prohibit the enforcement of a climate change interpretive guidance 
    issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 2010

   Mr. Posey (for himself, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. 
Souder, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mrs. 
Bachmann, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Broun 
 of Georgia, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Paul, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. 
    Akin) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the enforcement of a climate change interpretive guidance 
    issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 ``Maintaining Agency Direction on 
Financial Fraud Act''.

SEC. 2. INTERPRETIVE GUIDANCE NULL AND VOID.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no interpretive 
guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission on or after 
the effective date of this Act relating to ``Commission Guidance 
Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change'', affecting Parts 211, 
231, and 249 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, (as described in 
Commission Release Nos. 33-9106; 34-61469; FR-82), or any successor 
thereto, may take effect, and such guidance shall have no force or 
effect with respect to any person on or after February 2, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
IN RE: B.O.A.

264PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 2, 2019

Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, for Barber, Lauren Erica.

Holly Williamson Batten, Attorney at Law, N. Kyle Hicks, Attorney at Law, C. Gill Frazier, II, Attorney at Law, for Granville County DSS.

Derek Martin Bast, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for B.O.A.

Elizabeth Kennedy-Gurnee, Attorney at Law, for NCASSA.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 31st of December 2018 by North Carolina Association of Social Service Attorneys:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of January 2019."
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4661 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4661

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar 
 limitation on expensing certain depreciable assets and to extend the 
                   deduction for an additional year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2010

  Mr. Hodes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the dollar 
 limitation on expensing certain depreciable assets and to extend the 
                   deduction for an additional year.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON EXPENSING CERTAIN 
              DEPRECIABLE BUSINESS ASSETS.

    (a) Dollar Limitation.--Paragraph (1) of section 179(b) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limitations) is amended by 
striking ``$125,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after 2006 
and before 2011'' and inserting ``$250,000 in the case of taxable years 
beginning in 2010 or 2011''.
    (b) Reduction in Limitation.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(b) of 
such Code is amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2012''.
    (c) Election.--Paragraph (2) of section 179(c) of such Code is 
amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2012''.
    (d) Computer Software.--Clause (ii) of section 179(d)(1)(A) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``2012''.
    (e) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Repeal of inflation adjustment.--Section 179(b) of such 
        Code is amended by striking paragraph (5).
            (2) Repeal of 2008 and 2009 adjustments.--Section 179(b) of 
        such Code is amended by striking paragraph (7).
    (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roland HELMSTETTER.

No. 2003-KH-2183.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Helmstetter, Roland;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 02-4353.

Denied.
# Official Journal L 237/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 237 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 645 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 237

English edition

Legislation

Volume 645 July 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | * | Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/1086 of 23 June 2021 on building a Joint Cyber Unit | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/1086 of 23 June 2021 on building a Joint Cyber Unit

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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 Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available for licensing by the Department of the Navy. U.S. Patent No. 6,280,759: Method of Controlled Release and Controlled Release Microstructures, and any continuations, divisionals, or re-issues thereof.

# ADDRESSES:

Requests for copies of the invention cited should be directed to the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, and must include the U.S. Patent number.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jane F. Kuhl, Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone (202) 767-3083. Due to temporary U.S. Postal Service delays, please fax (202) 404-7920, e-mail:                         *kuhl@utopia.nrl.navy.mil*                         or use courier delivery to expedite response.                    

(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404.)

Dated: January 28, 2005.

I.C. Le Moyne, Jr.,

Lieutenant, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-2048 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Carlos CHAVEZ v. Irwin CARMICHAEL, Sheriff, Mecklenburg County

Luis Lopez v. Irwin Carmichael, Sheriff, Mecklenburg County

No. 437PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Sean F. Perrin, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Carmichael, Irwin (Sheriff)

Sejal Zota, Attorney at Law, W. Rob Heroy, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Chavez, Carlos, et al.

Erez Reuveni, Attorney at Law, Joshua S. Press, Attorney at Law, Gill P. Beck, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for United States

R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for the State *400***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th of December 2018 by Petitioners 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
#### Douglas R. ABADIE, et al. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Leblanc & Wadell, L.L.C. v. Landry & Swarr, L.L.C.

No. 2003-CC-1295.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Landry *&*Swarr L.L.C.;—Defendant; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. Y, No. 424-*1040010; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 03-C-0392.

Denied.
yUl^l-CXS TO T~W c:V&y~Vi of r,Ve C2o\ayT ofcnw^c ^

(7 et. o r j -r- n APTertVT*

^,0^: A , 30, 01V4

d.c>-Pv 1A>\\ \$J$) . 5^a Wr fiUv^

Pro ^e, W I/jctI Wv-e Jvv>c6 -fdU/vd orVifi*-

Av>7 Kw4 of" \v>-fovv^^r^Qv> Ni v^> t/>cW

•BECEIViDJff

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

FEB 02 2015

-AtetAftstarGlBrr
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20352]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 05-2494; MB Docket No. 04-343; RM-10799]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Cridersville, OH

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants a petition filed by Dana J. Puopolo 
requesting the allotment of Channel 257A at Cridersville, Ohio, as its 
first local service. See 69 FR 54613, published September 9, 2004. 
Channel 257A can be allotted consistent with the Commission's minimum 
spacing requirements, provided there is a site restriction of 11.8 
kilometers (7.3 miles) north at reference coordinates 40-45-20 NL and 
84-06-39 WL. The site restriction is necessary to prevent short-spacing 
to the licensed site of Station WBYR(FM), Channel 255B, Van Wert, Ohio. 
This allotment is located with 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S.-
Canadian border. The Canadian government has accepted concurrence for 
this allotment.

DATES: Effective November 10, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order, MB Docket No. 04-343, adopted September 23, 2005, and 
released September 26, 2005. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from 
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 1-
800-378-3160 or http://www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission will send a copy 
of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio, Radio broadcasting.

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec.  73.202  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Ohio, is amended 
by adding Cridersville, Channel 257A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 05-20352 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3458

___________ Abidan Chavez Tevalan, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Immigration * and Naturalization Service. John Ashcroft, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: September 24, 2003 Filed: September 30, 2003

___________ Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Abidan C. Tevalan, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of Tevalan’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. Respondent has moved to dismiss Tevalan’s appeal from the denial of his asylum application, arguing this court lacks jurisdiction to review that matter because the application was dismissed as untimely filed. After careful review of the record, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss that portion of the petition relating to asylum, and we deny the remainder of the petition.-2- Specifically, we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Tevalan did not show changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying his untimely asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review Attorney General’s determination as to timeliness of asylum application). As to the denial of withholding of removal, we conclude that the BIA’s ruling should be affirmed because Tevalan did not show a clear probability that he will face persecution on account of his political opinion upon return to Guatemala. See Kratchmarov v. Heston , 172 F.3d 551, 553-55 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as it relates to asylum, and we deny the petition as it relates to withholding of removal.

______________________________