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

**No. 11**  **- 6071** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. MARIO FITZGERALD PETTIFORD , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00005

- WO

- 1; 1:10

- cv - 00147

- WO

- PTS )

Submitted : June 16, 2011 Decided: June 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Mario Fitzgerald Pettiford, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mario Fitzgerald Pettiford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appeal able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (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 st ates 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 Pettiford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pettiford’s motion for a certificat e of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the3 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Gad Davis *v.*R. Montgomery.

Assignment of Claim in Hands of Attorney for Collection — Breach of Covenant.

Appellee had placed various claims in the hands of an attorney for collection and took his receipt for same. He by written indorsement assigned said claims to appellant, covenanting that if said claims “ should not net to said Davis $1,050 when collected I’ll make up the deficiency.”

In a suit on the covenant the appellant alleged in his petition that he had only collected of said claims the net amount of $886, and that no more could be collected. The court below sustained a demurrer to the petition. *Held,*that the averments of the petition clearly show a breach of the covenant.

APPEAL PROM JEPPERSON COURT OP OOMMON PLEAS.

June 29, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

Appellee had placed various claims in the hands of an attorney for collection and took his receipt for the same. He, by written *215indorsement, assigned said claims to appellant, covenanting that if said claims “ should not net to said Davis $1,050, when collected and paid to said Davis, that I will make up the deficiency.”

This covenant is dated April 28, 1859, and suit was brought on it December 4, 1865, in which appellant avers that he has only collected of said claims the net amount of $886, and that no more can be collected because of the insolvency or removal of the debtor, and prays for a judgment against Montgomery for the remainder of the $1,050.

To this petition the court sustained a demurrer, and dismisses their equity, which judgment is sought to be reversed.

Although this was an assignment of the debts, it was also a covenant that there should be collected and paid over to Davis the net amount, $1,050, and reports that the attorney to whom Montgomery had entered the collection of three debts should still collect and pay over, and evidences a purpose that the assignee should not be compelled to use all the diligence the law imposes on an assignee. Davis, of course, must use ordinary diligence to get from the attorney the amounts collected, but he was not compelled to see that each debtor was legally proceeded against with all the vigor required by an assignee.

The averments of the petition clearly show a breach of covenant and cause of action, and the court erred in sustaining the demurrer, wherefore, the judgment is reversed with directions to overrule the demurrer and for further proceedings.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Sex Difference in Health.
    Date: November 4, 2014.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 
2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institutes of 
Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#43252a31372b282e032e222a2f6d2d2a2b6d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82e4ebf0f6eae9efc2efe3ebeeacecebeaace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Treatments of Aging Obese Patients.
    Date: November 6, 2014.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 
2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MPH, DRPH, National Institute 
on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#084541434049414441486569616426666160266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1aca8aaa9a0a8ada8a18c80888dcf8f8889cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: October 6, 2014.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-24186 Filed 10-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,116
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,427
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      9,800
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          56,412
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            56,822
<LOANS>                                        169,940
<ALLOWANCE>                                        551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 252,396
<DEPOSITS>                                     186,532
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,415
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,984
<LONG-TERM>                                     35,293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,158
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 252,396
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,536
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,105
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    35
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,676
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,360
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,819
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,857
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        9
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,185
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    840
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         840
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       528
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.08
<LOANS-NON>                                        102
<LOANS-PAST>                                       175
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   543
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  551
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               371
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            180
        

</TABLE>
CONGRESSMAN SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY)

OPENING STATEMENT FOR ORGANIZATION HEARING

October 29, 2003

I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing, which concerns one of the most critical 

recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB).

The CAIB was clear and on-target in citing organizational deficiencies as a leading cause of the 

Columbia accident. It was also clear and on-target in calling for the establishment of a new 

Independent Technical Engineering Authority and of a truly independent safety organization.

In both its conclusions and its recommendations on organization, the CAIB was, unfortunately, able 

to follow a well-worn path. The Rogers Commission and the Shuttle Independent Assessment 

Team, among others, had made similar recommendations. They all apparently fell on deaf ears. 

That must not be allowed to happen again.

NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe is to be applauded for deciding that the reorganization of 

NASA should occur before return-to-flight, setting a more ambitious schedule than that called for 

by the CAIB. He should also be congratulated for recognizing NASA's organizational deficiencies 

before the Columbia accident, which led him to initiate the so-called "benchmarking studies" 

comparing NASA with the Navy.

But, of course, undertaking the right studies and setting the right schedule is not enough. NASA 

must actually come up with the right reorganization plan and make sure that it is taken to heart.

The CAIB did not dictate exactly how NASA should carry out its recommendations, so NASA is 

now in the process of drawing up its plans, and this Committee will have to review those plans with 

a fine-tooth comb. The purpose of today's hearing is to help give us the background to do just that. 

We will hear from organizations that the CAIB cited as possible models for NASA to follow and 

from an industrial leader in safety. Obviously, there are differences among these models, and any 

one of them would have to be adapted to apply to NASA. But they all highlight characteristics of 

high-reliability organizations that NASA has been lacking. We will learn from Admiral Gehman 

precisely why and how the Navy and Air Force safety programs can be seen as models for NASA.

I have no doubt that this Committee will have ample opportunity over the next year or so to put to 

use the information we gather today. As I noted earlier, NASA is just in the initial stages of putting 

together an organization plan, and I have complete confidence that Administrator O'Keefe has taken 

the CAIB recommendations to heart.

But that said, I must note that I believe the initial organization ideas being circulated by NASA fall 

significantly short of the mark. We look forward to working with NASA as it continues to rework 

its plans.

Today's hearing, though, is not on any specific proposal. Rather, our goal today is to learn what has 

worked elsewhere and why, and to start thinking how the experience of others could be put to work 

to help NASA. This is one of the most important tasks facing this Committee, and I am eager to 

hear from our witnesses today.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-4958

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE EDDIE MUNGO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-02-215)

Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 15, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Thomas Church, THE CHURCH LAW FIRM, Mooresville, North Carolina,

for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney,

Robert John Gleason, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Eddie Mungo pled guilty to one count of possession

of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1),

924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005). He was sentenced to the statutory

minimum term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel

filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), stating there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but

addressing whether Mungo was properly found to be an armed career

criminal under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4 (2004).

Mungo was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief, but did not do so. The Government did not file a brief.

Finding no error, we affirm.

We find there was no error in classifying Mungo as an

armed career criminal and increasing his statutory minimum sentence

to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Because Mungo was sentenced to the

statutory minimum term of imprisonment, we find no error with the

application of the sentencing guidelines.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record

in this case and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Mungo’s

conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel to inform

Mungo, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of

the United States for further review. If he requests a petition be

filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous,

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
- 3 -

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Mungo. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   March 31, 2008
    /s/  George C. PlattDate
    George C. PlattChief Executive Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   March 31, 2008
    /s/  Laurie L. LathamDate
    Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
Filed 11 / 13 / 23 In re C.C. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT S

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re C.C., a Person Coming

Under the Juvenile Court

Law. 2d Juv. No. B329426

(Super. Ct. No. FJ 57885 )

(Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.C . appeals from the juvenile court ’ s order denying his

suppression motion . (Welf. & Inst. Code, 1 § 700.1.) T he section

602 petition , as amended, alleged appellant carr ied a loaded

firearm not registered to him on his person in a public place

.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.2

(Pen. Code, § 2 5850, subd. (c)(6).) After h is motion to suppress

evidence was denied (§ 700.1 ), he ple aded no contest. The

juvenile court granted deferred entry of judgmen t. (§ 790 et seq.)

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.

After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening brief that

raises no arguable issues, noting that the order was not

appealable. On September 11, 2023 , we advised appellant by

mail that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he

wished us to consider. We have not received a response.

Denial of a motion to suppress pursuant to section 700.1

followed by deferred entry of judgment pursuant to section 790 et

seq. is not an appealable judgment or order. ( In re Mario C.

(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1308

- 1309.) Accordingly, the

appeal must be dismissed.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that

appellant ’ s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities

and that no arguable issues exist. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40

Cal.4th 106, 109

- 110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALT ODANO , J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. CODY, J.Benjamin R. Campos, Temporary Judge

(Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. IV, § 21.)

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Dee A. Hayashi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 

Mystery Picture Graphing Activity 1

On the graph found on the third page, plot and connect the points found in groups 1-7 to reveal a 

mystery picture. Once you have the picture, read through the information on the second page to 

determine which aircraft is pictured.

Points to be plotted: 

Group 1:

(23, 0) 

(5, 3) 

(3, 5) 

(2, 5) 

(2, 3) 

(1, 3) 

(-4, 6) 

(-7, 10) 

(-9, 10) 

(-12, 6) 

(-12, 4) 

(-14, 4) 

(-15, 6) 

(-16, 6) 

(-17, 5) 

(-21, 7) 

(-21, 8) 

(-22, 8) 

(-23, 7) 

(-24, 5) 

(-23, 5) 

(-22, 6) 

(-20, 4) 

(-20, 1) 

(-24, -2) 

(-22, -2) 

(-17, 0) 

(-15, 0) 

(-19, -2) 

(-24, -7) 

(-22, -7) 

(-5, -1) 

(-1, -2) 

(23, -1) 

(23, 0) 

Group 2:

(-5, -1) 

(-1, 1) 

 (-12, 1) 

(-13, 0) 

(-15, 0) 

Group 5:

(4, 1) 

(1, 1) 

(-2, -1) 

(-1, -1) 

(4, 1) 

Group 3:

(1, 3) 

(-2, 4) 

(-10, 2) 

(-12, 4) 

Group 6:

(-17, 5) 

(-16, 4) 

(-20, 4) 

Group 4:

(5, 3) 

(2,3) 

Group 7:

(-22, 6) 

(-21, 7) 
NASA’s Aeronautics Missions:

At any given time, NASA Aeronautics is working on different missions to help make flight safer, 

faster, quieter and more efficient. Some current projects include the following: 

Electrified Aircraft Propulsion: The X-57 (Figure 1) is 

one of the first airplanes fully powered by electricity, 

meaning that it produces no harmful emissions when it 

flies. NASA is working with industry partners to use the 

technology from the X-57 to produce larger passengercarrying airplanes that are partially or fully powered by 

electricity. Figure 1. The X-57 is powered by electricity.

Low-boom Flight Demonstrator: For many years, 

planes have been able to fly faster than the speed of 

sound, or supersonically. Unfortunately, when

planes fly this fast, they produce a very loud noise 

called a sonic boom. As a result, nonmilitary 

supersonic flight over land is not currently allowed. 

NASA’s X-59 (Figure 2) airplane is designed to fly 

supersonically without creating a sonic boom.

NASA will be flying the plane over different 

communities across the U.S. in an attempt to 

demonstrate that supersonic flight is possible 

without creating harmful noise pollution. If successful, the hope is that supersonic flight over land 

will become a reality.

Figure 2. The X-59 is designed to fly supersonically without 

creating a sonic boom. 

Advanced Air Mobility: Soon flying taxis,

package-carrying drones and other similar aircraft 

will be common sights in the skies over towns. 

NASA is leading the way to develop a system for 

controlling these aircraft as they fly passengers

and cargo over urban and rural areas. This system 

is known as Advanced Air Mobility (AAM). Figure 3. Flying taxis and other aircraft will be controlled 

through a system known as AAM. 

Answer:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Larry R. Houston, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03528-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record 

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: 

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney's signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6000 

Telephone number

(404 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8743 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 1