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

**No. 13**  **- 6**  **140**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DOUGLAS A. PANNELL, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

**No. 13**  **- 6142** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DOUGLAS A. PANNELL, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the We stern District of Virginia , at Danville
. Jackson L. Kiser , Senior District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr - 00024

- JLK

- RSB

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 80540

- JLK

RSB; 4:10

- cr - 00008

- JLK

- RSB

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 80541

- JLK

- RSB )

Submitted : March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.2 Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. Douglas A. Pannell, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford , Assistant United States Attorney, R oanoke , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Douglas A. Pannell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certi ficate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

re asonable 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 relie f 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 revie wed the record and conclude that Pannell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal4 contentions are adequately presented i n the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Alexa Miranda, Respondent, v Moses Vasquez, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 202]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, ICings County (LeFreniere, S.M.), dated October 1, 2003, which directed him to pay $465.98 per week in child support and $38.35 per week in child care, and (2) an order of the same court (Hepner, J.), dated January 2, 2004, which denied his objection to the order dated October 1, 2003.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 1, 2003, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 2, 2004; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 2, 2004, is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the objection is sustained, the order dated October 1, 2003 is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The father was represented by counsel at a hearing before a Hearing Examiner on April 22, 2003. That counsel failed to appear at a hearing on June 13, 2003. The father asked the Hearing Examiner if he could participate without a lawyer; the Hearing Examiner responded that “[i]t’s going to be” and continued the hearing. The father was later found to be chargeable with the support of his two children in the total amount of $504.33 per week.

The Hearing Examiner erred in failing to advise the father that he had “an absolute right to be represented by counsel at the hearing at his own expense, and that he was entitled to an adjournment for the purpose of retaining the services of an attorney” *(Hebert v Hebert,*149 AD2d 949, 949-950 [1989]; *see*Family Ct Act § 433 [a]). The Hearing Examiner further erred in proceeding with the hearing without an explicit waiver of the right to counsel from the father; there is no word or act in the record upon which the court could have concluded that the father explicitly waived that right *(see Matter of Alexander v Maharaj,*299 AD2d 354 [2002]; *Matter of Rockland County Dept. of Social Servs. [Champagne] v Champagne,*131 AD2d 488 [1987]). Therefore, we remit the matter to the Family Court, Kings County, for a new hearing and determination. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ONE (1) FORD VAN, ECONOLINE.

May 16, 1978.

Cross-Petition for certification denied. (See 154 *N. J. Super.*326)
Exhibit 99.2

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 on Form 10-K of Huntsman International Holdings LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Kimo Esplin, 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, that to my knowledge:



| |  | HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LLC
| |  | -----------------------------------
| |  | By:                                

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Huntsman International Holdings LLC and will be retained by Huntsman International Holdings LLC and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### Jackson, on the Demise of Gordy, *v.*Green and Others.

*Monday, June*2.

A DECREE in chancery, however erroneous the proceedings may be, is not a nullity, if the Court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1725

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sand and a 

lease for oil and gas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2003

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same 

area, a lease for tar sand and a lease for oil and gas, 

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. COMBINED HYDROCARBON LEASING. 

4 (a) SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING LEASING.—

5 Section 17(b)(2) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 

6 226(b)(2)) is amended—

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(2)’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 
2

S 1725 IS 

1 ‘‘(B) The Secretary may issue under this 

2 Act for the same area, separately—

3 ‘‘(i) a lease for explanation for and 

4 extraction of tar sand; and 

5 ‘‘(ii) a lease for exploration for and 

6 development of oil and gas. 

7 ‘‘(C) A lease issued under subparagraph 

8 (B)(ii) shall not be further subject to the Com9 bined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (30 

10 U.S.C. 181 et seq.). 

11 ‘‘(D) A lease issued for tar sand shall be 

12 issued using the same bidding process, annual 

13 rental, and posting period as a lease issued for 

14 oil and gas, except that the minimum accept15 able bid required for a lease issued for tar sand 

16 shall be $2 per acre. 

17 ‘‘(E) The Secretary may waive, suspend, or 

18 alter any requirement under section 26 that a 

19 permittee under a permit authorizing 

20 prospecting for tar sand must exercise due dili21 gence, to promote any resource covered by a 

22 combined hydrocarbon lease.’’. 

23 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

24 17(b)(1)(B) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 

25 226(b)(1)(B)) is amended in the second sentence by in-
3

S 1725 IS 

1 serting ‘‘, subject to paragraph (2)(B),’’ after ‘‘the Sec2 retary’’. 

3 (c) REGULATIONS.—Within 45 days after the date of 

4 the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 

5 shall issue final regulations to implement this section.

Æ
1 min read

# All Editions of International Space Station Benefits for Humanity

### Space Station Research Integration Office

Sep 14, 2022

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

View or download *Benefits *publications from most current to past editions.

## 					Downloads				

				View PDF                			

## International Space Station Benefits for Humanity – 2012

Sep 14, 2023

PDF (5.18 MB)

## 					Downloads				

				View PDF                			

## International Space Station Benefits for Humanity – 2015

Sep 12, 2023

PDF (12.80 MB)

## 					Downloads				

				View PDF                			

## International Space Station Benefits for Humanity – 2018

Aug 5, 2022

PDF (16.12 MB)

## 					Downloads				

				View PDF                			

## International Space Station Benefits for Humanity – 2022

Jan 3, 2023

PDF (10.05 MB)

## Discover More Topics

Station Benefits for Humanity

Opportunities and Information for Researchers

In Space Production Applications

Space Station Research and Technology
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS

INC., in its capacity as sponsor and

fiduciary for CGI Technologies and

Solutions, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RHONDA ROSE; NELSON LANGER

ENGLE PLLC,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 11-35127

D.C. No.

2:10-cv-00298-

RSM

CGI TECHNOLOGIES AND SOLUTIONS

INC., in its capacity as sponsor and

fiduciary for CGI Technologies and

Solutions, Inc. Welfare Benefit Plan,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RHONDA ROSE; NELSON LANGER

ENGLE PLLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-35128

D.C. No.

2:10-cv-00298-

RSM

ORDER
2 CGI TECH. AND SOLUTIONS, INC. V. ROSE

 The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge for the U.S. *

District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed August 16, 2013

Before: Mary M. Schroeder and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit

Judges, and Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge.*

ORDER

We vacate the district court’s order and remand this case

to the district court for further proceedings consistent with US

Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 133 S. Ct. 1537, 569 U.S.___

(2013).
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10611

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Sergio Martinez Zapata, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:22-CR-84-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Martinez Zapata has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Zapata has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 15, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10611 Document: 00517066191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024
No. 23-10611

2

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 23-10611 Document: 00517066191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2024
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. IRVIN B. COPPIN AND ROBERT JONES.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### COUNTY OF BERGEN v. BOROUGH OF PARAMUS.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification granted. (See 158 *N. J. Super.*512)
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
March 31, 2022

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA employees at the Maryland
Space Business Roundtable (MSBR) Lunch on April 19, 2022

On April 19, 2022, the Maryland Space Business Roundtable (MSBR), a nonprofit
organization under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host a lunch at the Martin’s
Crosswinds in Greenbelt, MD, starting at 11:30 a.m. The guest speaker is Dr. Darryll J.
Pines, President, University of Maryland.

Approximately 100 people have been invited to attend. Attendees will have a diversity of
views or interests and will include representatives from the legislative branch, state and local
government officials, representatives from industry, employees of Federal agencies,
academia, media and members of the public. The estimated cost of the event, including all
food and beverages, is $40 per person. MSBR is in control of the organizing, planning and
invitations for this event. Attendance at this event will allow NASA attendees to exchange
information regarding various NASA programs. I find that the event meets the requirements
of a “widely attended gathering” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(2).

I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having NASA personnel attend the
event because it will provide an opportunity for the invited persons to exchange ideas and
views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs and operations. NASA employees, including
NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to sign the ethics pledge under
Executive Order 13989, who do not have a significant role in a matter affecting the interests
of the sponsor may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event. In those
circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern that the
individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their
duties.

However, NASA employees who have a significant role in any pending matter affecting the
interests of the MSBR, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating or
administering a Space Act Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local
ethics counselor as to whether they may accept the invitation.

f Adam F, Greenstone
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas November 10, 2021
No. 04-21-00416-CV Kimi-Lyn MURRAY , Appellant

v. Phillip MURRAY , Appellee From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-19449 Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R A copy of appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on September 30, 2021. When the notice of appeal was filed, this court notified appellant in writing that our records did not reflect that the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 was paid. In addition, our record contains no evidence that appellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fee. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 20. We therefore ORDER

appellant to show cause in writing by November 29, 2021, that either: (1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filing fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. See id. R. 5, 42.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending the payment of the filing fee.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of November, 2021.___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
August 19, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WANDA KAY COHEN, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00634-CV v.

LANDRY’S, INC., LANDRY'S CRAB SHACK, INC., AND LANDRY'S 

SEAFOOD & OYSTER BAR-KEMAH, INC., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Landry's, 

Inc., Landry’s Crab Shack, Inc., and Landry’s Seafood & Oyster Bar-Kemah, Inc., 

signed June 6, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected 

the record and find the trial court erred in its judgment as to appellant Wanda Kay 

Cohen’s premises liability claim. We therefore order that the portions of the 

judgment on the premises liability claim are REVERSED and ordered severed and 

REMANDED for proceedings in accordance with this court's opinion.

Further, we find no error in the remainder of the judgment and order it 

AFFIRMED.

We order appellees, Landry's, Inc., Landry's Crab Shack, Inc., and Landry's 

Seafood & Oyster Bar-Kemah, Inc., jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred 

in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### James A. BOYD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John LAMBERT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-36104.

D.C. No. CV-00-05085-AAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*837Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 16, 2003.

James A. Boyd, pro se, Walla Walla, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carol A. Murphy, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General (Olympia), Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

James A. Boyd, a Washington state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation, interference with free exercise of his Muslim religion, violations of due process and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s November 7, 2002 order.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Boyd’s motion to appoint an expert on Islamic practices because the services of an expert were unnecessary.

Judge McDonald did not err by deciding Boyd’s motion for recusal in the first instance because a recusal motion may be decided by the very judge whose impartiality is being questioned. *See*28 U.S.C. § *455; In re Bernard, 31*F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir.1994) (holding that a motion for recusal must be decided by the very judge whose impartiality is being questioned). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion because Boyd’s conclusory allegations of bias failed to establish legally sufficient grounds for recusal. *See Yagman v. Republic Insurance,*987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.1993) (concluding that mere speculative assertions of invidious motive are insufficient to show judicial bias).

We have considered Boyd’s remaining contentions and find them unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *838courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A1395. JAMISON ASHLEY COLLIER v. JESSICA HOPE DELAIGLE.

Jamison Ashley Collier and Jessica Hope Delaigle were divorced in 2014. In

2016, Delaigle initiated this action by filing a petition for modification of parenting

time and contempt, and Collier counterclaimed for modification of child support and

contempt. In its final order, the trial court did not modify actual parenting time but

ordered that Collier pay attorney fees. Collier then filed this direct appeal, in which

he only challenges the fee award. We, however, lack jurisdiction.,

Where, as here, the underlying action involves rights and obligations arising

out of a divorce decree, and does not involve child custody, the case is a domestic

relations matter within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). See Walker v. Estate

of Mays, 279 Ga. 652, 653 (1) (619 SE2d 679) (2005). Appeals in such matters must

be initiated by filing an application for discretionary review. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)

(2), (b); accord Voyles v. Voyles, 301 Ga. 44, 47 (799 SE2d 160) (2017) (an appeal

in a domestic relations case in which custody is not at issue must be brought by

discretionary application). Here, Collier does not challenge custody. Therefore, he

was required to file an application for discretionary appeal. 

“[C]ompliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional.” 

Fabe v. Floyd, 199 Ga. App. 322, 332 (1) (405 SE2d 265) (1991). Collier’s failure to

followthe discretionary review procedure deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED. See id.

November 14, 2017
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/14/2017
Mark E. Smith

direct dial: 713.646.1385

mesmith@bakerlaw.com 

### November 12, 2015

VIA ELECTRONIC FILIN G

Jeffrey D. Kyle

Clerk of the Court

Third Court of Appeals

PO Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc. v.

John Walker III, et al ; No. 03

- 15

- 00285

- CV; in the Third Court of

Appeals.

Dear Mr. Kyle,

Please be advised that the hearing before the Texas Department of Motor

Vehicles Board has been removed from the Board’s November 13, 2015

age nda. For this reason, Appellants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

and Audi of America, Inc. hereby withdraw their Second Verified Motion

for Temporary Relief to Protect the Court’s Jurisdiction and Brief in

Support Thereof, as temporary relief in this ap peal is not necessary at this

time.

Regards,

/s/ Mark E. Smith

Mark E. Smith

Counsel for Appellants ACCEPTED

03-15-00285-CV

7808420

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

11/12/2015 4:58:24 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKClerk of the Court

Third Court of Appeals

November 12, 2015

Page 2

cc: Billy M. Donley Via Email

– bdonley@bakerlaw.com

S. Shawn Stephens Via Email

– sstephens@kslaw.com

James P. Sullivan Via Email

– jsullivan@kslaw.com

William R. Crocker Via Email

– crockerlaw@earthlink.net

Via Email

– tcasteel@earthlink.net

J. Bruce Bennett Via Email

– jbb.chblaw@sbcglobal.net

Via Email

– cardwellhartbennett@gmail.com

Joseph Letzer Via Email

– jletzer@burr.com

Dent M. Morton Via Email

– dmorton@burr.com

Whitney Hamm Via Email

– whamm@burr.com

Elizabeth B. Shirley Via Em ail

– bshirley@burr.com

Ellen Mathews Via Email

– emathews@burr.com

Kimberly Fuchs

Via Email

– kimberly.fuchs@texasattorneygeneral.gov

Dennis McKinney

Via Email

– dennis.mckinney@texasattorneygeneral.gov

Lloyd E. “Buddy” Ferguson

Via Email

– buddy.ferguson@strasburger.com

Via Email

– kathi.alexander@strasburger.com
39

30

36

33

30

32

36

33

Help Mathemetician Katherine

Johnson fill in the missing numbers

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Coloring Page!

www.nasa.gov NP-2020-08-062-LaRC

37

35

 - 31, 34, 38 ANSWERS