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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6558

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELLIOTT BROWN, a/k/a Ta Dow,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cr-00415-MJG-2)

Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 24, 2018

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elliott Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Elliott Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) 

motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court 

correctly concluded that Brown’s motion was not a “true Rule 60(b)” motion, but in 

substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 

397-99 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005) 

(explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized 

successive habeas corpus motion). Therefore, we conclude that Brown is not required to 

obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order. See Mcrae, 793 

F.3d at 397-99. However, in the absence of prefiling authorization, the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) 

(2012). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE v. CLEVELAND OXENDINE.

(Filed 7 June, 1957.)

Appeal by defendant from *Mallard, J.,*January Term 1957 of Robe-SON.

This is a criminal action tried upon a bill of indictment charging the defendant upon three counts: (1) with the unlawful possession of nontax-paid whiskey; (2) with the possession of nontax-paid whiskey for the purpose of sale; and (3) with the sale of nontax-paid whiskey. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty to each count.

*458The State offered as a witness Earl Branum, an employee of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit of the United States Treasury Department, who testified that he went with two day laborers to the house where the defendant was on the night of 9 September 1956, and one of the men accompanying him asked to buy some whiskey. The defendant told the man who asked for the whiskey that “he was pretty nearly 'out, but would let us have a drink. He poured out three drinks and each one paid for his drink.” The witness further testified that the whiskey was poured from a pint bottle and that there were no tax stamps on the bottle; that his purpose in buying the whiskey was to discover law violators; that he used money which had been given to him by an Investigator of the Alcoholic Tax Unit.

The defendant offered no testimony. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts, which were consolidated for judgment. From the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General McGal-liard for the State.*

*Britt, Campbell & Britt and Nance, Barrington & Collier for defendant.*

PER Cueiam.

The State’s evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Hence, the exception and assignment of error directed to the failure of the court below to dismiss as of nonsuit is without merit. Furthermore, the portions of the charge to the jury, to which the defendant has excepted and assigned as error, are in substantial compliance with our decisions bearing on similar instructions.

The defendant has failed to show any error which in our opinion would justify a new trial.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 13514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6240]



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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Notice of Change in Time and Date, and Place of Meeting

    The National Credit Union Administration Board determined that its 
business requires the previously announced open meeting (Federal 
Register, Vol. 60, No. 43, page 12283, Monday, March 6, 1995) scheduled 
for 1:00 p.m., Friday, March 10, 1995 in the Board Room, 7th Floor, 
Room 7047, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia, to be rescheduled 
and changed as follows:

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Monday, March 13, 1995.

PLACE: Doubletree Hotel, Salon III of the Ballroom, 201 Marquette NW., 
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, (505) 247-7000.
    The previously announced items are:

    1. Final Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 95-1, 
Supervisory Review Committee.
    2. Establishment of the Position of Ombudsman.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Becky Baker, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone (703) 518-6304.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-6240 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-M
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Crop Genetics Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Crop Genetics Research Research





- Gillen, Anne
- Cai, Guohong
- Plant Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement (301)
- Plant Diseases (303)
- Crop Production (305)

Research Project: **Location:
                            Crop Genetics Research** Project Number: 6066-21220-016-015-A
                        
                        Project Type: Cooperative Agreement Start Date: Oct 1, 2023
                        
                        End Date: Aug 31, 2024 **Objective:**
                        
                        Root-knot nematode greenhouse evaluation of selected lines and cultivars submitted to the Uniform Soybean Tests, Southern States, against 3 populations of root-knot nematodes; send results to ARS scientist. **Approach:**
                        
                        Root-knot nematode greenhouse evaluation of selected lines and cultivars in the  Uniform Soybean Tests, Southern States against 3 populations of root-knot nematodes (>100 samples).


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
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
  
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended September 26,
2010 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Jack H. BrownJack H. BrownChairman of the Board, President,
and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)December 15, 2010 /s/ Phillip J. SmithPhillip J. SmithExecutive Vice President, 
and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
(Principal Accounting Officer)December 15, 2010
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3672

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### STATE v. SARAH BELL.

(Filed 25 September, 1957.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bundy, J.,*May, 1957 Term, Bertie Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution first tried in the Recorder’s Court of Bertie County upon a warrant which charged the defendant with three separate violations of the liquor laws: (1) Possession'; (2) possession for *647the purpose of sale; and (3) sale. From a verdict of guilty and sentence, she appealed to the Superior Court. Upon a trial *de novo*there she was convicted by the jury and from the judgment imposed, appealed to this Court, assigning as error (1) the admission of evidence over her objection, (2) the refusal of the court to direct a verdict of not guilty, and (3) the. failure of the trial judge-to apply the law to the evidence.

*George B. Patton, Attorney General, and T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*John R. Jenkins, Jr., for defendant, appellant.*

PER CuRiam.

Two officers testified they were doing undercover work for the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. They went to the defendant’s home at about 10:30 p.m. on February 16, 1957, where a number of people were then gathered, some of whom were drinking. The defendant sold the officers a pint of nontaxpaid whisky for which they paid her $2.00.

The defendant testified she was not at home on the night of February 16, did. not. see the officers on that occasion, and had never sold them any liquor. Her husband and other witnesses testified she was not at her home on the date charged. Both the defendant and her husband admitted to previous convictions for-violation of the liquor laws.

The issue was simple. The evidence was in conflict. The jury accepted the State’s version. The court’s charge covered all essential aspects of the case. The punishment imposed was within the limits permitted under the law. No reason appears why the result should be disturbed.

No error.
#### STATE v. CECIL RAY DANIEL.

(Filed 25 February, 1948.)

1. Criminal Law § 80b (5)—

The record in this case, while somewhat deficient and wanting in clarity, *is held, to*contain sufficient matter to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of the appeal, and the State’s motion to dismiss is overruled.

2. Criminal Law § 52b: Constitutional Law § 33 — ■

It is improper for the court to charge the jury that upon defendant’s own testimony he is guilty of the' offense charged and that the jury must return such verdict, and thereupon to sentence defendant.

Appeal by defendant from *Williams, J.,*at September Term, 1947, of WlLSON.

Criminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with assault with a deadly weapon resulting in serious injury.

On the night of 2 July, 1946, a dance was held at the “piccolo joint” in Lucarna, which was attended by the defendant and Bud Rountree. Rountree says he tried to take care of the defendant as he was drinking and had his arm shot off when they reached his home. The defendant says he shot the prosecuting witness because he, Rountree, was drinking and intruding into his home frightening his wife and children.

The record discloses that at the close of the evidence, the court used this language :

“Gentlemen of the jury, there is no evidence in this case indicating that Rountree had any weapon or that he attempted to use any weapon at any time. Under the defendant’s own statement he would be guilty *537of assault with a deadly weapon and you must return such verdict. His sentence is six months, Mr. Clerk.”

The record further recites that “the jury did not leave the room and did not raise their hands in voting for' a conviction Of the defendant of assault with a deadly weapon.”

From the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.*

*Sharpe ■<& Pittman, Wiley L. Lane, Jr., Robert A. Farris, and Harry G. Finch for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

"While the transcript is somewhat deficient, as well as wanting in clarity, we think enough appears on the record, especially in view of the recitals in the judgment, to give us jurisdiction of the appeal. Hence, the motion to dismiss will be overruled. *S. v. Daniel,*121 N. C., 574, 28 S. E., 255; *S. v. Butts,*91 N. C., 524.

In addition to the peremptoriness of the charge, which seems to have silenced the jury, *S. v. Godwin,*227 N. C., 449, 42 S. E. (2d), 617, there is neither plea nor verdict to support the judgment. *S. v. Walters,*208 N. C., 391, 180 S. E., 664.

A new trial seems necessary. It is so ordered. See *Blake v. Smith,*163 N. C., 274, 79 S. E., 596.

New trial.
<PAGE>




                                                                     Exhibit 11
                           PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC.
                           ------------------------
                     COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     -------------------------------------


                                     13 Weeks Ended         26 Weeks Ended    
                                  --------------------   --------------------
                                  August 1,  August 2,   August 1,  August 2,
(Thousands, except per share)       1998       1997        1998       1997   
                                  ---------  ---------   ---------  ---------
Basic Computation:
------------------

Net earnings                      $ 49,301   $ 45,588    $ 87,059   $ 78,015

Weighted average common
 shares outstanding                 36,495     39,077      36,901     39,487
                                  --------   --------    --------   --------


Basic earnings per share          $   1.35   $   1.17    $   2.36   $   1.98
                                  ========   ========    ========   ========



Diluted Computation:
--------------------

Net earnings                      $ 49,301   $ 45,588    $ 87,059   $ 78,015

Weighted average common
 shares outstanding                 36,495     39,077      36,901     39,487

Net effect of dilutive stock
  options based on the treasury
  stock method                         460        446         462        240
                                  --------   --------    --------   --------
Outstanding shares for diluted
  earnings per share                36,955     39,523      37,363     39,727
                                  ========   ========    ========   ========


Diluted earnings per share        $   1.33   $   1.15    $   2.33   $   1.96
                                  ========   ========    ========   ========



Note: Basic earnings per share is computed by dividing net earnings by
the weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during
the period.  Diluted earnings per share includes the effect of conversions
of options.


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 47 (Friday, March 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5929]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Charles H. Deters; Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions 
of Shares of Banks or Bank Holding Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 95-4972) published on page 
11096 of the issue for Wednesday, March 1, 1995.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland heading, the entry for 
Charles H. Deters, is revised to read as follows:
    1. Charles H. Deters, Walton, Kentucky; to acquire an additional 
45.5 percent, for a total of 50 percent, of the voting shares of 
Commonwealth Trust Bancorp, Inc., Butler, Kentucky, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Farmers Bank, Butler, Kentucky.
    Comments on this application must be received by March 15, 1995.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 6, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-5929 Filed 3-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TONATIHU AGUILAR,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,

Defendants. No. 19

- 16412

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 00336

- DJH

- MHB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2019 **

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Tonatihu Aguilar appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his amended emergency motion for a preliminary injunction

in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim . We

have jurisdi ction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 16412

discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco , 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th

Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a preliminary

injunction bec ause Aguilar failed to establish a relationship between the requested

injunctive relief and defendant Henderson

. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v.

Queen’s Med. Ctr. , 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (absent a sufficient nexus

between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth

in the underlying complaint, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief

requested).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. S

ee Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED

.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2816

Curtis Instruments, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3539

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel