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### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4643



# 

A UBREY T. M OORE , III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-7)

Submitted: January 16, 2002

Decided: February 28, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and vacated in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Christopher B. Denson, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Patrick M. Flatley, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM: Aubrey Moore, III appeals from his sixty-three month sentence and court-ordered child support payments imposed following his guilty plea to one count of possession of a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(o) (West 2000). Moore challenges the constitutionality of 26 U.S.C.A. § 5845(b) (West 2000), which defines "machine gun" for the purposes of § 922(o). Our review of the record discloses no reversible error with regard to the conviction. However, the district court erred in requiring payment of past child support obligations as a part of the sentence. Therefore we affirm Moore’s conviction and sixty-three month sentence, but vacate the district court’s order to pay child support. We find that the definition of a receiver of a machine gun under § 5845(b) satisfies Due Process. Vagueness challenges not threatening First Amendment interests are examined as applied to the facts of the case. Maynard v. Cartwright , 486 U.S. 356, 361 (1988). According to the Firearms Technology Report, openings for the bolt handle slot, magazine port, ejection port, and sear had been cut out of a pipe seized from Moore’s residence. Although the openings had not beenfiled down to final specifications, the slots and openings were properly located and consistent with the slots and openings on a Sten machine gun. Section 5845(b) includes any part designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun. Moore’s part is clearly a receiver within the statutory definition. Regarding Moore’s claim that he was improperly sentenced, we find no statutory authority to impose back child support payments for this offense and vacate this portion of the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART 2 U NITED S TATES v. M OORE
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUG 22 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1217 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 23 4- CV-4 -HLM JOHN ( JIMMY ) A DA MS, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us CHATTOOGA COUNTY, RALPH KE LLETT , as an Individu al and in his Officia l Capacity as Chattooga Co. Sherif

f, ED DI E C OL BE RT , a s anI ndi vid

ua l and h is O ff

ic ia l C ap ac ity

a s In v es t i g at o r o f t h e C h at t o o g a C o u n ty Sh er i ff ’s O ff ic e, T
. L
. MA D D U X , a s an I ndi vid ua l and in h is O ff ic ia l C ap ac ity

a s M ag istrate Jud ge of C h a t t o o g aC o u n ty, D ef en dants -Appe lle es , HERBERT E. (BUZZ) FRANKLIN, as an I ndi vid

ua l and i n hi s O ff

ic ia l C ap ac ity as District A ttorney , L ooko ut Mtn. Judicial Ci rcu it , et al ., D ef en dants
.2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 22, 200 6) Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N and F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: The f inal judgm ents entered in favor of the def endants/app ellees ar e af

firm ed fo r the r ea sons state d inthe de ta il ed O RD E R o n de fe ndant F rankl in’ s m oti on t o dism iss (ORD ER

dated Marc h 8, 2005 ) and the detailed ORD ER granting su m

m ary j u d g me n ti nf

av o r o f a l l r e ma i n i n g d e f

e n d an t s / ap p e l l e e s a s t o a l l p e n d i n g c l a i ms (O RDE R dated Mar ch 15, 2006). AFFIR MED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            55,780
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,690
<MORTGAGE>                                         318
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      936
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  59,485
<CASH>                                           4,331
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               9,697
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           5,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,724
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 38,818
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              1,517
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  13,446
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            6,046
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        580
<COMMON>                                         1,011
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,469
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,724
<PREMIUMS>                                      12,158
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                923
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 998
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     500
<BENEFITS>                                       8,385
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        150
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             5,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    959
<INCOME-TAX>                                       144
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2252 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2252

 To reaffirm the importance of community banking and community banking 
  regulatory experience on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, to 
ensure that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has a member who has 
     previous experience in community banking or community banking 
                  supervision, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2014

  Mr. Vitter (for himself, Ms. Heitkamp, and Mr. Kirk) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reaffirm the importance of community banking and community banking 
  regulatory experience on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, to 
ensure that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors has a member who has 
     previous experience in community banking or community banking 
                  supervision, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Community Bank Preservation Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

    The first undesignated paragraph of section 10 of the Federal 
Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 241) is amended by inserting after the second 
sentence the following: ``The Board shall at all times have as a member 
at least 1 person with demonstrated experience working in or 
supervising community banks having less than $10,000,000,000 in total 
assets.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
enactment of this Act and apply to appointments made on and after that 
effective date, excluding any nomination pending in the Senate on that 
date.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connectionwith the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Gold Fields Limited (the “**Company**”) for the period ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “**Report**”), I, Nicholas J.Holland, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

**1****                                     **The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

**2****                                     **The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

Date: December 22,2005

 

 
| /s/  Nicholas J. Holland |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Nicholas J.  Holland     |
| Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 3.3
                    AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


<PAGE>
                    AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                               MACHINETALKER, INC.


IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT:

         (1) The name of this Corporation is MACHINETALKER, INC.

         (2) The original  Certificate of  Incorporation of this corporation was
filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on January 30, 2002.

         (3) The amendment to the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation set
forth below has been duly adopted by the Corporation's  Board of Directors and a
majority of the Corporation's stockholders in accordance with Section 242 of the
Delaware  General  Corporation  Law,  with  the  approval  of the  Corporation's
stockholders  having  been  given  by  written  consent  without  a  meeting  in
accordance with Section 228 of the Delaware General Corporation Law.


                                     TENTH:

                  Effective on the date of the  recording  of this  Amendment to
         Certificate  of  Incorporation  with the  Delaware  Secretary of State,
         there  shall be a  one-for-five  split of all  issued  and  outstanding
         Common  Stock of the  Corporation  such that for every  five  shares of
         Common Stock  outstanding  on such recording  date, the  shareholder of
         that Common Stock of record on such recording date shall thereafter own
         one share of Common Stock.


         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,   said   MachineTalker,   Inc.  has  caused  this
Certificate  to be signed by duly  authorized  officers on this 3rd day of April
2009.




                          By:   /s/ Roland F. Bryan
                             --------------------------------------------------
                              Roland F. Bryan, President and Secretary











                                      -1-
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2284 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2284

 To require the Secretary of Transportation to establish new standards 
for automobile hoods and bumpers to reduce pedestrian injuries, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 1, 2014

     Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself, Mr. Blumenthal, and Mr. Schatz) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
           Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Transportation to establish new standards 
for automobile hoods and bumpers to reduce pedestrian injuries, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Pedestrian Safety Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION.

    (a) Rulemaking.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, through the 
Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
shall issue a final rule that--
            (1) establishes standards for the hood and bumper areas of 
        motor vehicles, including passenger cars, multipurpose 
        passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a gross vehicle 
        weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, in 
        order to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities suffered 
        by pedestrians who are struck by such vehicles; and
            (2) considers protection of vulnerable pedestrian 
        populations, including children and older adults.

SEC. 3. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.

    Section 120(c)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``including pedestrian hybrid beacons,'' 
        after ``traffic control signalization,''; and
            (2) by inserting ``roadway improvements that provide 
        separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles, including 
        pedestrian sidewalks and crossing islands,'' after ``safety 
        rest areas,''.

SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF SAFETY ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS IN HIGHWAY SAFETY 
              IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

    Section 148(a)(4)(B) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
                            ``(xxv) Safety public awareness 
                        campaigns.''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD.

# ACTION:

Notice of Record of Decision.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 4332(2)(c), the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy NEPA regulations (32 CFR part 775), and the Marine Corps Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, which is Marine Corps Order P5090.2A w/change 2 (MCO P5090.2A), the Department of the Navy (DON) announces its decision to implement the permanent incremental increase in personnel at Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Lejeune, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) New River, and MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina.

More specifically, this action includes: (1) New infrastructure construction (e.g. buildings, roads, utility lines); (2) demolition and/or upgrades to existing infrastructure; and (3) relocating existing units and personnel to consolidate and better support the combat missions. Implementation of this action will be accomplished as set out in the Preferred Alternative and described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) of December 11, 2009.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The complete text of the Record of Decision is available for public viewing on the project Web site at                     *http://www.growtheforcenc.com*                     along with copies of the Final EIS and supporting documents. For further information, contact Grow the Force in North Carolina EIS Project Manager, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Building C Room 3012, 6505 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23508-1278. Telephone: 757-322-4942.                

Dated: January 22, 2010.

A.M. Vallandingham,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-2118 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### MILTON SCHOTTENFELD v. MINA SCHOTTENFELD.

October 29, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1650

LOUIS PATIENT MASSING , Petitioner ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeal s
.

Submitted : March 25, 2022 Decided: March 30, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by un published per curiam opinion

.
Louis Patient Massing, Petitioner Pro Se. Jessica R. Lesnau, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Louis Patient Massing , a native and citizen of Cameroon , petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applicatio ns for asylum , withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT)

. We have reviewed the record, including the transcript of Massing ’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We lack jurisdi ction to review final orders of removal of aliens such as Massing who are removable due to having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1252(a)(2)(C). W e retain jurisdiction to review constitutional cla ims or questions of law.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). However, Massing has not raised any such issue. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review with respect to the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Turning to Massing’s challenge to th e denial of CAT protection,
see Nasrallah v. Barr , 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020) (holding that the criminal review bar at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not preclude judicial review of noncitizen’s factual challenges to the denial of CAT protection), we conclude t hat substantial evidence supports the denial
of relief. See In re Massing (B.I.A. May 26, 2021); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2021)

. Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

proc ess.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2221 

To extend the authorization for the Automobile National Heritage Area in 

Michigan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 8, 2014 

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the authorization for the Automobile National 

Heritage Area in Michigan. 

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 ‘‘MotorCities National 

5 Heritage Area Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTOMOBILE NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA AUTHOR7 IZATION EXTENDED. 

8 Section 109 of the Automobile National Heritage 

9 Area Act (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 105–355) is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2221 IS

1 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2014’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘September 30, 2030’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 212 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 212

   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2013

Mr. Cochran (for himself and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROPERTIES.

    In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress approves the conveyance by 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, on behalf of the United States, to the 
State of Mississippi of the Yellow Creek Port properties owned by the 
United States and in the custody of the Authority at Iuka, Mississippi, 
as of the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### DAVEA FISHER v. CHUBB & SON, INC. AND AERO MAYFLOWER TRANSIT COMPANY, INC.

October 29, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.8

                        PETROLEUM CONSULTANT'S CONSENT
                        ------------------------------

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 of Devon Energy Corporation of our appraisal report for Santa Fe
Snyder Corporation as of the years ended December 31, 1999, 1998 and 1997.

     We also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in
the Registration Statement.



     RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
     November 15, 2000