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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7319

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. WILLIE JEROME MACKINS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (3:04-cv-00261-LHT; 3:97-cr-22-4)

Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 14, 2009

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Jerome Mackins, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Willie Jerome Mackins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mackins 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 27, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50666-50667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19808]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

August 21, 2008.
    The Department of Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 after the 
date of publication of this notice. Copies of the submission(s) may be 
obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. 
Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to 
the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance 
Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750

[[Page 50667]]

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before September 26, 
2008 to be assured of consideration.

Office of Foreign Assets Control

    OMB Number: 1505-0168.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Travel Service Provider and Carrier Service Provider 
Submission
    Description: Submissions will provide the U.S. Government with 
information to be used in enforcing various economic sanctions programs 
administered by OFAC under 31 CFR Chapter V.
    Respondents: Businesses and other for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 19,000 hours.
    OMB Number: 1505-0202.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Request for a Specific License to Visit an Immediate Family 
Member.
    Forms: TD-F-90-22.60, TD-F-90-22.60 (SP).
    Description: Submissions will provide the U.S. Government with 
information to be used in enforcing the limitations on Cuba travel-
related transactions incident to visiting immediate family members by 
persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 5,833 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Office of Foreign Assets Control, (202) 622-
0596, Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 2176 Treasury Annex, 
Washington, DC 20220.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7316, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Robert Dahl,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-19808 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DAVID P. HENRY, 

Appellant,

v. 

Case No. 5D22-2014

LT. Case No. 2016-DR-011118

JESSICA B. CARROLL, 

Appellee.

/ 

Opinion filed November 22, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Brevard County, 

Jennifer Opel Taylor, Judge.

David P. Henry, Melbourne, pro se. 

Maria Henderson, of Henderson 

Legal Group, Viera, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Renato P. MARIANI, Appellant. United States of America, v. Leo R. Del Serra, Appellant. United States of America, v. Michael L. Serafini, Appellant.

Nos. 02-2700, 02-2704 and 02-2705.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued July 18, 2003.

Decided Aug. 6, 2003.

Mark E. Cedrone (Argued), Cedrone *&*Janove, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Renato P. Mariani.

Robert E. Welsh, Jr. (Argued), Welsh *&*Recker, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Leo R. Del Serra.

Gregory T. Magarity (Argued), Philadelphia, PA, and Peter Goldberger (Argued), Law Offices of Peter Goldberger, Ardmore, PA, for Appellant Michael L. Serafini.

Bruce Brandler (Argued), Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee.

Before: MCKEE, BARRY, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellants Renato P. Mariani, Michael L. Serafini, and Leo R. Del Serra were convicted on their pleas of guilty to Count One of two separate indictments, the first involving the illegal corporate reimbursement of campaign contributions, and the second involving the disposal of solid waste in a landfill in excess of the maximum permitted by state law. Following the pleas, there ensued extensive litigation over the various permutations which guideline sentencing so often involves, and surely involved in this somewhat complicated case. The District Court gave serious and extraordinarily careful consideration to every issue that was raised. On June 7, 2002, sentences of 22 months, 27 months, and 18 months, were imposed on *157Mariam, Serafini, and Del Serra, respectively, to be served concurrently.

On appeal, appellants have raised some new issues and some old ones in support of their bottom-line argument that the sentences should be lower than they are. After having carefully reviewed the sentences imposed and after having had the benefit of excellent oral argument from able counsel, we conclude that any error, if error there be, did not prejudice appellants. The judgments of sentence will, accordingly, be affirmed.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 17, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20443

Summary Calendar

 

CHAVEZ D. PRICE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;

KEN LEVI; TONI TRIPLETT,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-4221

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chavez D. Price, Texas prisoner # 821134, appeals from the

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in which he challenged

the 1997 revocation of his probation, which had been imposed

following his 1995 conviction for aggravated assault. The

district court dismissed Price's petition as time-barred under

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), 28
No. 02-20443

-2-

U.S.C. § 2244. The district court issued Price a certificate of

appealability ("COA") on the timeliness of his petition. We

review de novo a district court's denial of a federal habeas

petition on procedural grounds. See Lookingbill v. Cockrell, 293

F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 878

(2003). 

The district court held that Price's conviction became

final, and the federal limitations period began, upon the

expiration of the 30-day period under state law to file a timely

petition for discretionary review ("PDR") with the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals. Price argues that his conviction did not

become final until much later when the Texas Court of Appeals

issued its mandate. He argues further that after the state

appellate court denied his direct appeal, it issued a notice to

disregard the decision and permitted him to file a supplemental

brief. 

Price's conviction became final at the conclusion of the 30-

day period for filing a PDR, not when the state court issued its

mandate. See Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690, 694-95 (5th Cir.

2003). Based on our review of the state record, we conclude that

the district court did not err in finding Price's petition timebarred. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Price's motion to supplement

the record is DENIED.

AFFIRMED. MOTION DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 617 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 617

 To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from charging veterans 
        copayments for preventive services relating to COVID-19.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2021

     Ms. Underwood (for herself, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Zeldin, and Mr. 
 Fitzpatrick) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from charging veterans 
        copayments for preventive services relating to COVID-19.

    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 ``No Coronavirus Copays for Veterans 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON COPAYMENTS AND COST SHARING FOR VETERANS 
              RECEIVING PREVENTIVE SERVICES RELATING TO COVID-19.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not require 
any copayment or other cost sharing under chapter 17 of title 38, 
United States Code, for qualifying coronavirus preventive services. The 
requirement described in this subsection shall take effect with respect 
to a qualifying coronavirus preventive service on the specified date.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``qualifying 
coronavirus preventive service'' and ``specified date'' have the 
meaning given those terms in section 3203 of the CARES Act (Public Law 
116-136).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00239-CV

ADAM M. BOROWSKI, M.D., 

BRIAN BULL, M.D. AND

HILLCREST FAMILY HEALTH CENTER,

Appellants

v.

KAREN AYERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND 

AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE 

OF DARYL LYNN AYERS, DECEASED, 

AND ETHAN AYERS,

Appellees

From the 414th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-3325-5

ORDER

The petitions for permission to appeal interlocutory order are granted. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 28.3(k). 

PER CURIAM
Borowski v. Ayers Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed September 24, 2015

Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 27, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19802]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


International Product Change--Global Plus 2 Negotiated Service 
Agreements

AGENCY: Postal Service\TM\.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Postal Service notice of filing a request with the Postal 
Regulatory Commission to add Global Plus 2 Negotiated Service 
Agreements to the Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 
and 3632(b)(3).

DATES: August 27, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret M. Falwell, 703-292-3576

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[reg] hereby 
gives notice that it has filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of United States Postal Service to Add Global Plus 2 Negotiated 
Service Agreements to the Competitive Product List, and Notice of 
Filing (Under Seal) the Enabling Governor's Decision and Two 
Functionally Equivalent Agreements. Documents are available at http://www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2008-7, CP2008-16, and CP2008-17.

Neva R. Watson,
Attorney, Legislative.
[FR Doc. E8-19802 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Adrian COX, a/k/a Roundman, a/k/a Fatboy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-7458.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

*588Kevin Cox, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Adrian Cox seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cox has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). In addition, we decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal. *See Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.*
|Exhibit 12                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Peoples Energy Corporation and Subsidiary Companies             
|                                                                
|Statement Re:  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
|(Dollars in Thousands)                                          
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|                                                                
|Net Income Before Preferred                                     
|Stock Dividends, as reported                                    
|                                                                
|Undistributed earnings from equity investees                    
|                                                                
|Add - Income Taxes                                              
|Fixed charges excluding capitalized interest                    
|                                                                
|Earnings                                                        
|                                                                
|Fixed charges including capitalized interest                    
|                                                                
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                              
|
224 So.2d 589

#### Hoyt B. HAMILTON, as Principal Judge of the Court of County Commissioners, etc. v. Clyde MORROW et al., etc.

7 Div. 769-A.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 12, 1969.

*230Burnham, Klinefelter & Halsey, Anniston, for appellant.

Embry & Robinson, Pell City, Gerald Swann, Ashville, Hawkins, Rhea & Mitchell, Gadsden, Fred Blanton, Birmingham, for appellees.

LIVINGSTON, Chief Justice.

This is an ancillary proceeding to a mandamus suit that was filed by appellees and others in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County against appellant. See Hamilton v. Morrow et al., 284 Ala. 228, 224 So.2d 588. In the instant proceeding, appellees (Clyde Morrow, H. N. Mize, James B. Walters, and Charles Williams, four of the plaintiffs named in the mandamus suit) petitioned the Circuit Judge of St. Clair County, Alabama, to adjudge appellant in civil contempt for failure to obey a peremptory writ of mandamus. From a judgment granting the petition and adjudicating appellant in contempt, this appeal was taken. Also, the respondent petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment and the proceedings incident thereto.

The appeal is pursuant to Act No. 859, Acts of Alabama 1965, p. 1602; Sec. 9ji, Title 13, Recompiled Code 1958, Cumulative Pocket Part. Harris v. State, 281 Ala. 622, 206 So.2d 868.

We take judicial knowledge of the contents of the record filed in the mandamus proceedings noted in the first paragraph of this opinion. Statham v. Statham, 282 Ala. 322, 211 So.2d 456.

No requirements of orderly procedure were followed in the proceedings below. They are so confused and irregular that it cannot be considered that any valid order of contempt could be made. No useful purpose would be served by setting out the utterly confused and confusing proceedings that occurred below. Justice requires that the order of contempt be annulled and set aside. It is so ordered.

Order of contempt is annulled and set aside.

LAWSON, MERRILL and HAR-WOOD, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Michelle WING, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 02-30038.

D.C. No. CR-01-00037-DWM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 13, 2002.

Before TROTT, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Michelle Wing appeals a sentence of six months imprisonment imposed by the district court. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will not recount them here.

I

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the government breached the plea agreement at sentencing by recommending a six month sentence. We analyze whether the government violated the terms of the plea agreement de novo. *United States v. Anglin,*215 F.3d 1064, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2000). To the extent that this depends on the district court’s factual determinations, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. *United States v. Martinez,*143 F.3d 1266, 1271 (9th Cir.1998).

In this case, the government pledged to recommend “the minimum period of incarceration *within the guideline range as finally calculated by the Court at sentencing.”*(emphasis added). All parties agree that the appropriate sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was six to twelve months of incarceration, which was the guideline range as finally calculated by the district court at sentencing. The government recommended a sentence of six months — the minimum sentence within the sentencing range. It is true, as Wing contends, that the Sentencing Guidelines allow a trial court to substitute supervised release for a portion of the sentence. However, the minimum period of incarceration obtained through application of supervised release is not equivalent to “the minimum period of incarceration *unthin the guideline range.”*(emphasis added). Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that the “minimum period of incarceration” as stated in the plea agreement referred to the guideline range, rather than sentencing options outside the guidelines range that might reduce the total period of incarceration.

II

The district court did not consider constitutionally impermissible factors in this *863case when it imposed a sentence of six months, rather than one month, of incarceration. Wing alleges that the sentence resulted from her assertion of her privilege against self-incrimination in refusing to reveal a charge filed against her for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The district court did refer to Wing’s “lack of candor” at the sentencing hearing, but referenced a number of examples, including her representation that she had custody over her son, her provision of inaccurate employment verification information, and her failure to disclose other employment related to the exchange of money. Thus, the record does not reflect that the district court relied on constitutionally impermissible factors in reaching its decision.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                    UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RALI Series 2006-QS4 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do not contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
   material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
   circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not  misleading  with
   respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

In giving the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: National City Mortgage Co.
and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director