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

No. 19
- 6640

JAMES CROSS, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. KAREN PSZCZOLKOWSKI , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv - 00069

- GMG )

Submitted : August 22, 2019 Decided: August 27, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. James Cross, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Cross, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is n ot 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. § 22 53(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 Cross has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil ity, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9834]



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


NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Music Advisory Panel; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Music Advisory Panel (Composers Fellowships Section) to the 
National Council on the Arts will be held on May 15-18, 1995 from 9 
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. This meeting will be held in Room M-14, at the Nancy 
Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
    A portion of this meeting will be open to the public on May 18 from 
3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. for a policy discussion and guidelines review.
    The remaining portions of this meeting from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on 
May 15-17 and from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on May 18 are for the purpose of 
Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on 
applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on 
the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including 
information given in confidence to the agency by grant applicants. In 
accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 8, 1994, 
these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection 
(c)(4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to 
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel 
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in 
attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of Special Constituencies, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-
5532, TYY 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Yvonne Sabine, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5433.

    Dated: April 17, 1995.
Yvonne M. Sabine,
Director, Office of Council and Panel Operations, National Endowment 
for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 95-9834 Filed 4-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
Order filed June 24, 2021 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00143-CV

____________

RUHUL AMIN PARVEZ AHMED, Appellant

V.

KHALEDA PARVIN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 505th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-DCV-264584

ORDER

This appeal is from an order signed March 8, 2021 by the district judge

denying a de novo hearing of the order signed February 8, 2021 by the associate 

judge denying appellant’s December 9, 2020 and/or January 12, 2021 motion to set 

aside the “default judgment” based on no notice of the October 1, 2020 trial setting. 

A final divorce decree was signed on December 15, 2020. Appellant filed a notice 

of appeal on March 15, 2021. Appellant filed a Statement of Inability to Afford 

Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond in the trial court. “A party who files a 
Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs cannot be required to pay 

costs except by order of the court as provided by this rule.” See Tex. R. Civ. P. 

145(a). Appellant has not been ordered to pay costs pursuant to Rule 145. 

Accordingly, Appellant is hereby deemed indigent for purposes of this appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Spain.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-76,313 & AP-76,314

EX PARTE FELIPE RUBIO GASPAR, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 22481-A AND 22386-A

IN THE 336 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM FANNIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary

of a habitation and aggravated assault and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment for the burglary

of a habitation, and twenty years’ imprisonment for the aggravated assault. His direct appeals were

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Gaspar v. State, Nos. 06-08-00209-CR and 06-08-00207-CR

(Tex. App. – Texarkana, October 22, 2008).
2

Applicant contends that he was denied the opportunity to appeal these convictions because

no timely notice of appeal was filed in either case. We remanded these applications to the trial court

for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The trial court has determined that Applicant was denied his right to appeal due to a

breakdown in the legal system as a whole, and that the error is not directly attributable to either trial

or appellate counsel. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an outof-time appeal of the judgments of conviction in Cause Nos. 22481-A and 22386-A from the 336th

Judicial District Court of Fannin County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may

give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful

appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentences had been imposed on the date on which

the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he

must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the

mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: March 17, 2010

Do Not Publish
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-4469

Valmet, 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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000900 25-JUL-2016 09:11 AM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6181

JERRY BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIC D. WILSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-01304-LO-TCB)

Submitted: July 24, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Brown, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Brown, a federal prisoner, appeals the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Brown v. Wilson, No. 1:13-cv-01304-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Dec. 

11, 2013). 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
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1





Interpool, Inc. Contact:                    Raoul J. Witteveen, President
                                            (212) 916-3264

Atlas Capital Partners LLC Contact:         Mitchell I. Gordon, President
                                            (212) 916-3284

NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


                INTERPOOL, INC. PROVIDES UPDATE ON PROSPECTS FOR
                    FINANCING PROPOSED MERGER WITH XTRA CORP.
                    -----------------------------------------

NEW YORK, NY, October 23, 1998 -- Interpool, Inc. (NYSE: IPX), which on June 19,
1998 announced its participation in a proposed recapitalization and merger (the
"Merger") of XTRA Corporation ("XTRA") with Wheels MergerCo LLC ("MergerCo"), a
company newly formed by Apollo Management IV, L.P. ("Apollo") and Interpool
(through its affiliate Atlas Capital Partners), today provided an update on the
prospects for financing the proposed Merger.

In a press release issued today, XTRA reported that MergerCo indicated that, in
view of current market conditions, it does not believe it would be able to
obtain the financing necessary to consummate the Merger. Interpool agrees that,
in light of current circumstances, the prospects are not favorable for obtaining
the financing necessary to consummate the Merger.

Interpool is one of the world's largest lessors of cargo containers used in
international trade and is the second largest lessor of intermodal container
chassis in the United States. Founded in 1968, Interpool leases its containers
and chassis to over 200 customers on a worldwide basis. Earlier this year,
Interpool acquired a 50% interest in Container Applications International, Inc.
("CAI"). CAI is one of the world's leading managers of container assets.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7134

ECM Industries LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
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 Annual Report of Multimedia Games, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Clifton E. Lind, Chief Executive Officer, and Craig S. Nouis, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), that, based upon my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: December 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Clifton E. Lind    
|                         |  | Clifton E. Lind        
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                         | 
|                         |  | /s/ Craig S. Nouis     
|                         |  | Craig S. Nouis         
|                         |  | Chief Financial 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 required by Section 906, has been
provided to Multimedia Games, Inc., and will be retained by Multimedia Games, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



-80-
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42762

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

DILLEN JAMES ENDRES ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 616

Filed: September 4, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen , District Judge.

Order dismissing Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Dillen James Endres pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with an enhancement

for the use of a firearm , Idaho Code §§ 18

- 901(a), 19

- 2520, 18

- 905(1)(b) ; second degree arson,
I.C. § 18

- 803; and burglary, I.C. § 18

- 1401. The district court imposed concurrent unified
sentences of sixteen years, with eight years determinate, for each count of aggravated assault; three years determinate f or second degree arson; and five years, with three years determinate, for
burglary

. Endres filed a n Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion. The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss, allowing Endres time to provide additional information in supp ort of his2 motion. Endres failed to file any additional information, and thus the district court dismissed the

Rule 35 motion. Endres appeals.
A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d
23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of
new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the
denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent
the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional info rmation in support of

Endres ’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order dismissing Endres ’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7323

MARK A. TURNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JAMES FARROW; DEMETRIUS BOYD; TERRENCE

JEFFERSON; HERMAN KINARD; CARLOS FERREINA,

Plaintiffs,

versus

BARNER GEISE, Chief Solicitor; JEFFERY BLOOM,

Chief Public Defender; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; COUNTY OF RICHLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-1829-3-21BC)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 1, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
2
3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v.

Geise, No. CA-95-1829-3-21BC (D.S.C. July 31, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10143]



========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / 
Notices

[[Page 18371]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

April 19, 1996.
    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments 
regarding these information collections are best assured of having 
their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. 
Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), Washington, D.C. 20503 and to Department Clearance Officer, 
USDA, OIRM, Ag Box 7630, Washington, D.C. 20250-7630. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-6204 or (202) 720-
6746.
    <bullet> Title: Disposal of National Forest Timber--Timber Export 
and Substitution Restrictions.
    Summary: The Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act 
of 1990 provides that each person who acquires, either directly or 
indirectly, unprocessed timber originating from Federal lands west of 
the 100th meridian in the contiguous 48 States shall report the receipt 
and disposition of such timber to the Secretary of Agriculture.
    Need and Use of the Information: This information will be used to 
monitor compliance and for enforcement of the Forest Resources 
Conservation and Shortage Relief Act of 1990.
    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Federal 
Government.
    Number of Respondents: 3575.
    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion, 
Annually.
    Total Burden Hours: 46,234.
Donald E. Hulcher,
Deputy Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-10143 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-01-M