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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6587

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH WAYNE TUCKER, a/k/a Kenneth Nathaniel Tucker, a/k/a 

Kenneth N. Tucker,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:07-cr-00098-HEH-1)

Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 5, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Wayne Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Wayne Tucker seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). 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 motion 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 Tucker 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 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                               __________________

                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT

                        PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

        DATE OF REPORT (DATE OF EARLIEST EVENT REPORTED): April 26, 2000

                              ___________________

                        CONCENTRA OPERATING CORPORATION
             (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

          Nevada                       001-15699                75-2822620
      (State or other           (Commission File Number)     (I.R.S. Employer
jurisdiction of incorporation)                            Identification Number)

 5080 Spectrum Drive
Suite 400 - West Tower                                            75001
   Addison, Texas                                               (Zip code)
(Address of principal
 executive offices)



       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (972) 364-8000

                                 Not Applicable
                 (former address if changed since last report)
<PAGE>

Item 5. Other Events

See the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 dated April 26, 2000,
announcing financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2000, for Concentra
Operating Corporation.

Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits

(c) Exhibits

99.1  Press Release of the Registrant dated April 26, 2000
<PAGE>

                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



                              CONCENTRA OPERATING CORPORATION
                              (Registrant)


                              By:     /s/ Richard A. Parr II
                                      -----------------------------------------
                              Name:   Richard A. Parr II
                              Title:  Executive Vice President, General Counsel
                                      & Secretary

Date:  April 27, 2000
<PAGE>

                               INDEX TO EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT
NUMBER

99.1  Press Release of Registrant dated April 26, 2000
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0
                                           Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-23239, No. 333-38679 and No. 333-68085) and
on Form S-8 (File No. 333- ______, No. 333-______, and No. 333-______) of Gothic
Energy Corporation of our report dated February 21, 2000, relating to the
financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders on Form
10-KSB.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 28, 2000
#### WALKER v. WALKER.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. HECTOR PERDOMO-CABRERA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 19-1374 (D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00192-RM-6) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , KELLY , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Hector Perdomo-Cabrera pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute or possess with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine. He was sentenced to se rve 108 months in pr ison. Although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights, he filed a notice of appeal. The government has moved to enforce th e appeal waiver in the plea agreement pursuant to United States v. Hahn , 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judica ta, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consiste nt with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 23, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 Under Hahn , we consider “(1) whether the di sputed appeal falls within the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; a nd (3) whether enforcing the waiver would result in a misca rriage of justice.” Id . at 1325. The government asserts that all of the Hahn conditions have been satisfied because: (1) Mr. Perdomo-Cabrera’s appeal is within the scope of the appeal waiver; (2 ) he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) enforcing the waiv er would not result in a miscarriage of justice. In response to the government’s motion, Mr. Perdom o-Cabrera, through counsel, concedes his appeal waiver is en forceable under the standard set forth in Hahn

. Based on this concession and our independ ent review of the record, we grant the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. This dismissal does not affect Mr. Perdomo- Cabrera’s right to pursue post-conviction relief on the grounds permi tted in his plea agreement.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
#### David J. HEFFERNAN, as Judge, etc., et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Vernon C. SEAVER, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Howard W. McCay, of Miami, for plaintiffs in error.

E. F. P. Brigham, of Miami, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed by order of Supreme Court.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 140 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax 

on telephone and other communications services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on telephone and other communications 

services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Telephone Excise Tax 

5 Repeal Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND 

7 OTHER COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 33 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to facilities and services) is 

10 amended by striking subchapter B. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 140 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 (1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by 

3 striking ‘‘chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed 

4 by sections 4064 and 4121) and subchapter B of 

5 chapter 33,’’ and inserting ‘‘and chapter 32 (other 

6 than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 

7 4121),’’. 

8 (2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such 

9 Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 4251 or’’. 

10 (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such 

11 Code is amended— 

12 (i) by striking ‘‘imposed by—’’ and all that 

13 follows through ‘‘with respect to’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘imposed by section 4261 or 4271 with respect 

15 to’’, and 

16 (ii) by striking ‘‘bills rendered or’’. 

17 (C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) 

18 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘COMMUNICA19 TIONS SERVICES AND’’. 

20 (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by 

21 striking ‘‘4251, 4261, or 4271’’ each place it ap22 pears and inserting ‘‘4261 or 4271’’. 

23 (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such 

24 Code is amended by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

25 subparagraph (B), by striking subparagraph (C), 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 140 IS

1 and by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subpara2 graph (C). 

3 (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of 

4 such Code is amended by striking the item relating 

5 to subchapter B. 

6 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

7 this section shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills 

8 first rendered more than 90 days after the date of the 

9 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, 

COLORADO 

100 Jefferson County Parkway 

Golden, Colorado 80401 

Plaintiffs: 

LEE JOHNSON and LINDA JOHNSON 

v. 

Defendants:

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE 

FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and 

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY 

S COURT USE ONLY S

_____________________________ 

Case No. 11CV2466 

Division: 14 

ORDER 

 

THIS MATTER, coming before the Court on Defendants Allstate Insurance Company, 

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, and Allstate Indemnity Company’s Unopposed 

Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs’ Amended 

Complaint, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, 

HEREBY GRANTS Defendants Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty 

Insurance Company, and Allstate Indemnity Company an extension of time of up to and 

including November 4, 2011, within which to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ 

Amended Complaint. 

 DONE this ___ day of October, 2011. 

 

 By:_______________________________________ 

 District Court Judge 

1545610v.1 

Jack W. Berryhill

District Court Judge

DATE OF ORDER INDICATED ON ATTACHMENT

SO ORDERED The moving party is hereby ORDERED 

to provide a copy of this Order to any 

pro se parties who have entered an 

appearance in this action within 10 days 

from the date of this order.

EFILED Document 

CO Jefferson County District Court 1st JD 

Filing Date: Oct 17 2011 9:11AM MDT 

Filing ID: 40381455 

Review Clerk: Roxanna M C

Case 1:11-cv-02724-WJM-BNB Document 5 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
/s/ Judge Jack W Berryhill 

Court: CO Jefferson County District Court 1st JD 

Judge: Jack W Berryhill 

Alternate Judge: Unassigned 

File & Serve 

Transaction ID: 40261835 

Current Date: Oct 17, 2011 

Case Number: 2011CV2466 

Case Name: JOHNSON, LEE et al vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al 

Court Authorizer: Jack W Berryhill 

Case 1:11-cv-02724-WJM-BNB Document 5 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### ANDRIS et al. v. DU PONT CELLOPHANE CO., Inc.

No. 6196.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Nov. 30, 1937.

Francis Heisler, of Chicago, 111., for appellants.

Thomas C. Angerstein, George W. Angerstein, Russell F. Locke, Mitchell D. Follansbee, Clyde E. Shorey, and Louis W. Becker, Jr., all of Chicago, 111., and Abel Klaw, of Wilmington, Del., for appellee.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

On October 22, plaintiffs moved the District Court to vacate the order of September 23 which dismissed their action. On November 10, the District Court denied this motion to vacate the order of dismissal, and the appeal is from this order.

Defendant has moved this court to dismiss the appeal because the order appealed from is not appealable. This motion was denied without prejudice to its renewal at the time of the hearing on the merits.

The notice of appeal mentions only the order of November 10, which simply denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the order of September 23. The assignments of error, however, allege as error the entry of the order of September 23 dismissing the bill of complaint.

The order from which this appeal is taken is not reviewable on appeal. It is < not appealable. Glinski v. United States (C.C.A.) 93 F.2d 418, decided November 9, 1937; Smith v. U. S. ex rel. Gorlo (C.C.A.) 52 F.2d 848.

Aside from this procedural difficulty, it is impossible to sustain plaintiffs’ contentions relative to their right to maintain a common law cause of action in Illinois for the contraction of an occupational disease in Illinois. The reasons which impelled the decisions of this court in McGuire v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 87 F.2d 112; Gestauts v. American Manganese Steel Co., 87 F.2d 1005, are equally applica*422ble in the instant case. The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois has spoken on this question, and. we are bound by its interpretation of the law. McCreery v. Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Co., 363 Ill. 321, 2 N.E.(2d) 290, 105 A.L.R. 75; Vogel v. Johns-Manville Prod. Corp., 363 Ill. 473, 2 N.E.(2d) 716; Boshuizen v. Thompson & Taylor Co., 360 Ill. 160, 195 N.E. 625.

The appeal is dismissed.
61454 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 201 / Thursday, October 16, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Financial Management Service; Senior 

Executive Service: Combined 

Performance Review Board (PRB) 

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, 

Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of Members of Combined 

Performance Review Board. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

4314(c)(4), this notice announces the 

appointment of the members of the 

Combined Performance Review Board 

(PRB) for the Financial Management 

Service (FMS), Bureau of Engraving and 

Printing (BEP), the Bureau of the Public 

Debt (BPD), the United States Mint and 

the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau (TTB). The Board reviews the 

performance appraisals of career senior 

executives below the level of bureau 

head and principal deputy in the 

bureaus, except for executives below the 

Assistant Commissioner/Executive 

Director level in the Financial 

Management Service and Bureau of the 

Public Debt. The Board makes 

recommendations regarding proposed 

performance appraisals, ratings, 

bonuses, pay adjustments and other 

appropriate personnel actions. 

Composition of Combined PRB: The 

Board shall consist of at least three 

voting members. In the case of an 

appraisal of a career appointee, more 

than half of the members shall consist 

of career appointees. The names and 

titles of the Combined PRB members are 

as follows: 

Primary Members 

Rita Bratcher, Assistant 

Commissioner, Debt Management 

Services, FMS; Pamela J. Gardiner, 

Deputy Director, BEP; Andrew 

Brunhart, Deputy Director, United 

States Mint; Anita Shandor, Assistant 

Commissioner, Office of Financing, 

BPD; John J. Manfreda, Administrator, 

TTB. 

Alternate Members 

Wanda Rogers, Assistant 

Commissioner, Payment Management, 

FMS; Scott Wilson, Associate Director, 

Management, BEP; Marty Greiner, Chief 

Financial Officer, United States Mint; 

Lori Santamorena, Executive Director, 

Government Securities Regulations 

Staff, BPD; Vicky I. McDowell, Deputy 

Administrator, TTB. 

DATE: Membership is effective on 09– 

30–2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Ford, Director, Human Resources 

Division, Financial Management 

Service, 3700 East West Hwy., 

Hyattsville, MD 20782, Telephone 

Number: 202–874–7080. 

Dated: September 30, 2008. 

Judith R. Tillman, 

Commissioner, Financial Management 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–24435 Filed 10–15–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–35–M
#### STATE ex rel. DOLAN v. KELLY.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Case 1:11-cv-02337-MJW Document 6 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02337-MJW Document 6 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02337-MJW Document 6 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02337-MJW Document 6 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02337-MJW Document 6 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02337-MJW Document 6 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7
Case 1:11-cv-02337-MJW Document 6 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

(For Revocation of Supervised Release)

v. Case Number: 11-cr-00407-WYD-01 

EDWIN LEHI, JR.

USM Number: 37957-013

Edward Harris, AFPD

 (Defendant's Attorney)

THE DEFENDANT: Admitted guilt to violation 1, as alleged in the probation officer's petition.

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of this violation: 

Violation Number Nature of Violation

Violation

Ended

1 Failure to Reside In/Comply with Rules of Residential Reentry

Center (RRC)

05/23/2014 

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is

imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

It is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30

days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special

assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must

notify the court and United States Attorney of material changes in economic circumstances.

It is further ordered that the Addendum to this judgment, which contains the defendant’s social

security number, residence address and mailing address, shall be withheld from the court file and

retained by the United States Probation Department.

September 17, 2014

Date of Imposition of Judgment

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Signature of Judge

Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior U.S. District Judge

Name & Title of Judge

 October 9, 2014

Date

Case 1:11-cr-00407-REB-DW Document 88 Filed 10/09/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
DEFENDANT: EDWIN LEHI, JR.

CASE NUMBER: 11-cr-00407-WYD-01 Judgment-Page 2 of 2

 

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be

imprisoned for a total term of 24 months with credit for time served of 84 days. No term of supervised

release to follow imprisonment.

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

 

 

 

 

Defendant delivered on to 

at , with a certified copy of this judgment.

 UNITED STATES MARSHAL 

By 

 Deputy United States Marshal

Case 1:11-cr-00407-REB-DW Document 88 Filed 10/09/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23



                        Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
CompuCom Systems, Inc.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (No. 33-
30056 and No. 33-85268) on Form S-8 of CompuCom Systems, Inc. of our report
dated July 10, 2000 relating to the statements of net assets available for
benefits of CompuCom Systems, Inc. 401(k) Matched Savings Plan as of December
30, 1999 and December 31, 1998, and the related statements of changes in net
assets available for benefits for the years then ended, and the related
supplemental schedule, which report appears in the December 30, 1999 annual
report on Form 11-K of the CompuCom Systems, Inc. 401(k) Matched Savings Plan
filed by CompuCom Systems, Inc.


                                                       KPMG LLP

Dallas, Texas
July 10, 2000
**Exhibit 32****CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifiesin his capacity as an officer of Monarch Community Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) that the AnnualReport of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that theinformation contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition of the Company at the end of such period and results of operations of the Company forsuch period.        Date: March 28, 2008 By:  /s/ Donald L. Denney    Donald L. Denney    President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)      Date: March 28, 2008 And:  /s/ Rebecca S. Crabill    Rebecca S. Crabill    Vice President, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)   
49