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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7824

ADIB EDDIE RAMEZ MAKDESSI, a/k/a Eddie Makdessi,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN WATSON, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:09-cv-00214-MHL)

Submitted: May 20, 2021 Decided: May 25, 2021

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Adib Eddie Ramez Makdessi appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b), (d) motion for relief from judgment as an unauthorized, successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.

*

 Our review of the record 

confirms that the district court properly construed Makdessi’s motion as a successive 

§ 2254 petition over which it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to obtain prefiling 

authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae, 793 F.3d at 397-

400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th 

Cir. 2003), we construe Makdessi’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application 

to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Makdessi’s 

claims do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. Finally, we deny Makdessi’s motion for 

the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the district court’s 

jurisdictional categorization of a Rule 60 motion as an unauthorized, successive habeas 

petition. United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                             132
<SECURITIES>                                       252
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (26)
<INVENTORY>                                        498
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           1,467
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (783)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          2,136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           786
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,313)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,550
<SALES>                                          1,362
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,427
<CGS>                                            1,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    57
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      9
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (16)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (7)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (7)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Company has adopted an unclassified presentation in the Statement of
Financial Condition.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### MICHAEL B. McNALLEN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8112

September 29, 1975

540 P.2d. 121

*David Abbatangelo,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Dan M. Seaton,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Michael B. McNallen pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery, a felony under NRS 200.380, and was sentenced to a term of fifteen (15) years in the Nevada State Prison. Sentence was suspended and McNallen was placed on probation for a period of five (5) years.

During the period of probation the state moved for revocation because of purported violations of the probation agreement.

After a hearing, the district court entered an order revoking probation and imposed the original fifteen (15) year sentence. McNallen appeals, contending revocation was unjustified. The contention is without merit.

One of the conditions of probation was that McNallen refrain from any activity involving drugs or narcotics (controlled substances).

Evidence leading to the request for revocation — and before the district court when probation was revoked — -was that McNallen had been arrested for, and charged with, possession of a controlled substance. The charges were not contested at *593the revocation hearing; and, counsel conceded the charges could not be refuted.

Accordingly, the record fully supports the district judge’s order revoking probation. Lewis v. State, 90 Nev. 436, 529 P.2d 796 (1974); Jennings v. State, 89 Nev. 297, 511 P.2d 1048 (1973).

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                             THE ADVEST GROUP, INC.

                              List of Subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Jurisdiction                                        Present
      Name                                           Where Incorporated                                   Ownership
      ----                                           ------------------                                   ---------
<S>                                                  <C>                                                  <C>
Advest, Inc.                                         Delaware                                                  100%
      Advest Insurance Agency, Inc.                  Massachusetts                                             100%
      Balanced Capital Services, Inc.                Connecticut                                               100%

Advest Bank and Trust Company                        Connecticut                                               100%

Advest Capital, Inc.                                 Connecticut                                               100%

Advest Mortgages, Inc.                               Delaware                                                  100%

Advest Properties, Inc.                              Delaware                                                  100%

Advest Transfer Services, Inc.                       Delaware                                                  100%

A.B. Realty Corp.                                    Connecticut                                               100%

Bank Street Management Company                       Connecticut                                               100%

Billings & Company, Inc.                             Connecticut                                               100%
      Billings Management Co.                        Connecticut                                               100%

Boston Advisors, Inc.                                Massachusetts                                             100%

Vercoe Insurance Agency, Inc.                        Ohio                                                      100%
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-7937.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 24, 2005.

Decided March 9, 2005.

*471Herman Hall, Appellant pro se.

Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Herman Hall, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hall’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
# C_2007314EN.01002301.xml

| 22.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/23

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4969 — DZ Equity Partner/Welle Holding/PAIDI Möbel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 314/05)

On 12 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4969. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4969. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.R., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, COLORADOWYOMING PERFORMANCE CLUSTER, 

Denver, CO, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 11-2063 

Issued: February 28, 2014 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Gregory A. Hall, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER APPROVING ATTORNEY’S FEE 

Before: 

RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

Pursuant to section 501.9(e) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure,1 Gregory A. Hall, 

Esquire, Denver, Colorado, counsel for appellant, filed an application for approval of a fee in the 

sum of Six Thousand and Sixty Dollars ($6,060.00) for legal services performed on behalf of 

appellant before the Board. A statement accompanying the application listed 30.30 hours of 

work at $200.00 per hour. 

Appellant was provided an opportunity by the Board to comment on the requested fee, 

but no response was received. 

The Board has duly considered the statement from the representative as to the extent and 

nature of the necessary work performed before the Board on behalf of appellant and has 

evaluated the fee request based on the usefulness of the representative’s services, the nature and 

complexity of the appeal, the capacity in which the representative has appeared, the actual time 

spent in connection with the Board appeal and customary local charges for similar services and 

 1

 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 
2

concludes that the requested fee is reasonable for the services rendered before the Employees’ 

Compensation Appeals Board.2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application for attorney’s fee is approved in the 

sum of Six Thousand and Sixty Dollars ($6,060.00) for legal services performed on behalf of 

appellant with respect to the appeal before the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board.3

Issued: February 28, 2014 

Washington, DC 

 

 Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 2 Id.

3

 Effective June 28, 2012, Alec J. Koromilas was appointed an Alternate Judge.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Alliant Energy Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ William D. Harvey

William D. Harvey

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

May 4, 2007
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

In the Matter of M.H., widow of W.H., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, NATIONAL 

SECURITY AGENCY, Fort Meade, MD, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1140

Issued: October 27, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel M. Goodkin, Esq., for the appellant

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER GRANTING FEE PETITION

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

Counsel for appellant has filed a fee petition in the amount of $1,673.50.1 The Board notes 

that all petitions for approval of fees for representatives’services are considered under the Board’s 

statutory authority found at section 8127 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) 

and under its Rules of Procedure found at 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).3

As required by the Board’s regulations, appellant has been afforded written notice of the 

fee requested and provided an opportunity to comment on the fee petition. 4 Attached to the fee 

petition is a signed acknowledgement by appellant consenting to the fee in the amount of 

$1,673.50. 

1 FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8127(b)) and its implementing regulations (20 C.F.R. § 501.9) require the Board to review each 

fee petition on its own merits and with regard to the unique facts and issues of each appeal. 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8127.

3

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e).

4

Id.
2

The Board has reviewed the fee petition and finds that it is in compliance with the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure.

5

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the fee petition is granted in the amount of $1,673.50. 

Issued: October 27, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5

Id.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, PFC 

FLOYD K. LINDSTROM VA MEDICAL 

CLINIC, Colorado Springs, CO, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0099

Issued: November 30, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On October 29, 2021 appellant, through her representative, filed an appeal from a March 8, 

2021 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0099.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the March 8, 2021 decision was September 4, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until October 29, 2021, more than 180 days after the March 8, 

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0099 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0099 is dismissed.

Issued: November 30, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
# C_2007310EN.01000101.xml

| 20.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4878 — Continental/Siemens VDO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 310/01)

On 29 November 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4878. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4878. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10222 and # 10223] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-1609-DR), dated 10/24/2005. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Wilma.                     

*Incident Period:*                         10/23/2005 and continuing.                     

*Effective Date:*                         10/26/2005.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/23/2005.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/24/2006.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated 10/24/2005, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

Primary Counties: 

Broward, Glades, Hendry, Miami-Dade, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie. 

Contiguous Counties: 

Florida: De Soto, Highlands, Indian River, and Okeechobee. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

      ( print page 66888)    
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Cheri L. Cannon, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-21958 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P