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

No. 22

- 6449

MARCUS LE’SHAWN DIXON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 00114

- HEH

- EWH )

Submitted : September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6449 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Marcus Le’Shawn Dixon appeal s the district court’s ord er denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as successive and unauthorized

. As Dixon’s Rule 60(b) motion sought to challenge the court’s order on the merits, it was an una uthorized successive § 2254 petition ∗ and the district court thus correctly denied it as the court lacked jurisdiction because Dixon failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); McRae , 793 F.3d at 397

- 400. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

. Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Dixon’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to
file a second or s uccessive § 2254 petition. Upon review, we conclude that Dixon’s claims
do not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C § 2244(b)(2). We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRM ED

∗ A certificate of appealability is not r equired to appeal a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion which is in substance an unauthorized, successive habeas petition. United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015)

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6449 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>

================================================================================

                                    FORM 6-K

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                          For the month of January 2004

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346


                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 -----------------------------------------------
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)


                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    ----------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                         Form 20-F [X]     Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                               Yes [  ]    No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

================================================================================

<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT LIST


Exhibit             Description
-------             -----------
  99.1              Press Release, dated January 26, 2004, regarding filing of
                    motion in federal court.

  99.2              Press Release, dated January 26, 2004, regarding an attempt
                    to vacate aspects of a court order.
<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.

Date: January 26, 2004

                                    HOLLINGER INC.


                                    By: /s/ Peter G. White
                                        ------------------
                                        Name and Title: Peter G. White
                                        Co-Chief Operating Officer and Secretary
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime ZAGAL-MERAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41467

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jaime Zagal-Meraz (Zagal) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. Zagal contends that his Minnesota conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance is a misdemeanor under federal law and should not have been treated as an “aggravated felony” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Zagal’s § 2L1.2(b)(l)(C) argument is unavailing in light of our precedent. *See United States v. Rivera,*265 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir.2001); *United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez,*130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir.1997). Zagal argues that our precedent is inconsistent with *Jerome v. United States,*318 U.S. 101, 63 S.Ct. 483, 87 L.Ed. 640 (1943). Having preceded *HinojosaLopez,*however, *Jerome*is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” *See United States v. Short,*181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir.1999).

Zagal’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Athough Zagal contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Zagal properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Jesus Martinez GONZALEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72948.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*975Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Jesus Martinez Gonzalez, San Bernardino, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christina Bechak Parascandola, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners’ applications for cancellation of removal

We have reviewed the respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The motion is construed as a motion to dismiss in part and a motion for summary affirmance in part.

We have reviewed the petition for review and we conclude that petitioners Jesus Martinez Gonzalez ([ AXX-XXX-XXX ]) and Maria de Jesus Torres ([ AXX-XXX-XXX ]) have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2005); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction as to petitioners Jesus Martinez Gonzalez and Maria de Jesus Torres is granted. *See*8 *976U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003); *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioners Maria E. Martinez ([ AXX-XXX-XXX ]) and Jesus Martinez Torres ([ AXX-XXX-XXX ]) presented no evidence that they have a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2002). The agency therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition with respect to petitioners Maria E. Martinez ([ AXXXXX-XXX ]) and Jesus Martinez Torres ([ AXX-XXX-XXX ]) is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Quentin Abney, Appellant.

Submitted January 20, 2009;

decided February 11, 2009

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

GERALD WILLIAM CLARKE a/k/a G. WILLIAM CLARKE a/k/a BILL

CLARKE a/k/a GERALD W. CLARKE and KIP CLARKE , Appellant s ,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC
, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED AS NOMINEE FOR
AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER and JANET WARD, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 16

- 1886

[ July 13, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County ; Susan R. Lub itz , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502011CA011089A

.

Kendrick Almaguer and Arthur E. Alves, II of The Ticktin Law Group, PLLC, Deerfield Beach, for appellant s

.

Jennifer M. Chapkin, William L. Grimsley and N. Mark New, II of McGlinchey Stafford, Fort Lauderdale, fo r A ppellee Nationstar Mortgage

LLC

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

T

AYLOR
, M AY and C ONNER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nidamark King, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 579]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), rendered June 23, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

By pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited his right to the review of his claim regarding the People’s alleged failure to comply with CPL 710.30 *(see People v Taylor,*65 NY2d 1 [1985]; *People v La Bar,*16 AD3d 1084 [2005]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-Q PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 NOT FILED PURSUANT TO
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on
Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this report on Form 10-Q of
American Building Control, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained herein this report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of American
Building Control, Inc. Dated: May 17, 2004/s/ Danny W. MillsDanny W. MillsPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jon D. GreenwoodJon D. GreenwoodSenior Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer andInterim-Chief Financial Officer
# Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In
condition with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals  Limited (the
Company) for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2005 as  filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I,
George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

By /s/ George G. Usher
George G. Usher,
Chief Executive Officer
June 14, 2005

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

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 21, 2011 

p1114 

Order 

 

November 21, 2011 

143602 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 14 3602 

 COA: 296055 

 Antrim CC: 09-004275-FC 

JOHN JASON HAMMOND, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

cases of People v Pullen (Docket No. 142751) and People v Watkins (Docket No. 

142031) are pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases 

may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that 

the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2462 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for implementing or administering 

any provision of the memorandum of understanding reached between 

the Secretary of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2023 

Mr. DONALDS (for himself, Mr. POSEY, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. 

CRAWFORD, Mrs. LUNA, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. 

WILLIAMS of New York, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. TIFFANY, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, and Ms. GREENE of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for implementing or 

administering any provision of the memorandum of understanding reached between the Secretary of Energy 

and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. 

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 ‘‘Protect American En5 ergy From China Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2462 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR MEMORANDUM OF UN2 DERSTANDING BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF 

3 ENERGY AND CHINESE ACADEMY OF 

4 SCIENCES. 

5 Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, no 

6 Federal funds may be made available to implement or ad7 minister any provision of the memorandum of under8 standing reached between the Secretary of Energy and the 

9 Chinese Academy of Sciences on Cooperation in Nuclear 

10 Energy Sciences and Technology (signed in December 

11 2011). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2127 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, 

Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation, Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition 

to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall 

Foundation, Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund for 

fiscal year 2024. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2127 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, MORRIS K. UDALL 

3 AND STEWART L. UDALL FOUNDATION, ENVI4 RONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND 

5 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Independent Agencies, Morris K Udall and Stew9 art L Udall Foundation, Environmental Dispute Resolu10 tion Fund for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $3,200,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George POWERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50844.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los An-geles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roger S. Hanson, Esq., Law Offices of Roger S. Hanson, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

George Powers appeals from the restitution order imposed following his conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Powers contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by ordering restitution in an amount that exceeded the amount that was supported by the jury’s verdict or found beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Bussell,*414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (restitution orders are unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2314 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2314

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
State, International Commissions, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
State, International Commissions, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
              INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS, SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of State, 
International Commissions, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 
may not exceed $48,134,000.
                                 <all>
```