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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6726

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES H. HUTCHINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-162, CA-97-302-3)

Submitted: July 14, 1998 Decided: July 30, 1998

Before WIDENER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James H. Hutchins, Appellant Pro Se. John E. Sullivan, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order transferring his successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Appellant cannot now

seek review of claims raised in his first § 2255 motion, the

dismissal of which he chose not to appeal. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hutchins, No. CR-92-

162; CA-97-302-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
SHARON KELLER PRESIDING JUDGE

BARBARA P. HERVEY BERT RICHARDSON KEVIN P. YEARY DAVID NEWELL MARY LOU KEEL SCOTT WALKER MICHELLE M. SLAUGHTER JESSE F. MCCLURE, III JUDGES 

# C OURT OF 

# C RIMINAL 

# A PPEALS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 DEANA WILLIAMSON CLERK (512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB GENERAL COUNSEL (512) 463-1597

S UPREME C OURT B UILDING , 201 W EST 14 TH S TREET , R OOM 106, A USTIN , T EXAS 78701 W EBSITE WWW

. TXCOURTS

. GOV / CCA 

## May 12, 2021
11th Court Of Appeals Clerk Sherry Williamson P. O. Box 271 Eastland, TX 76448 * Delivered Via E-Mail *

Re: Porter, Darrell Jan CCA No. PD-0422-20 COA No. 11-19-00255-CR Trial Court Case No. C-18-1229-CR
The court has issued an opinion on the above referenced cause number.
Sincerely,

Deana Williamson, Clerk

cc: District Attorney Ector County (Delivered Via E-Mail) Darrell Jan Porter District Clerk Ector County (Delivered Via E-Mail) Stacey M. Soule (Delivered Via E-Mail) Presiding Judge 244th District Court (Delivered Via E-Mail)
#### Eric Allen VICKERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 06-6235.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 19, 2006.

Eric Allen Vickers, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Eric Allen Vickers seeks to appeal the report and recommendation entered by a magistrate judge that recommended denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000), a magistrate judge may enter a final order directly appealable to the court of appeals upon consent of all parties. Otherwise, under § 636(b), an appeal of an order entered by a magistrate judge lies with the district court. Absent an express adoption, modification, or rejection of the magistrate judge’s ruling by the district court, the ruling is generally not reviewable by the court of appeals. *See Reynaga v. Cammisa,*971 F.2d 414, 416-18 (9th Cir. 1992). In this case, we find nothing in the record showing that the parties agreed to have Vickers’ petition decided by the magistrate judge, and the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation does not purport to be a final, appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael R. RAY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-8445.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2009.

Decided: May 13, 2009.

Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*213Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Ray appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to amend his restitution order and for reconsideration of the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his restitution order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. *United States v. Ray,*No. 4:02-cr-00687-TLW-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 22, 2008; Nov. 7, 2008). 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.*
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3617 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 620
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3617

                          [Report No. 109-340]

      To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2006

 Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. 
Crapo, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Craig, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
  Baucus, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Vitter) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                           September 20, 2006

               Reported by Mr. Inhofe, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
      To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

    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 ``North American Wetlands Conservation 
Reauthorization Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 7(c)(5) of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 
U.S.C. 4406(c)(5)) is amended by striking ``fiscal year 2007'' and 
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012''.
                                                       Calendar No. 620

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3617

                          [Report No. 109-340]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

      To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 20, 2006

                       Reported without amendment`
#### In the Matter of J. Paul Kolodziej, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[972 NYS2d 526]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1982. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Gloversville, Fulton County.

By decision dated May 12, 2011, this Court suspended respon*1137dent from the practice of law for a period of two years, which suspension was conditionally stayed *(Matter of*Kolodziej, 84 AD3d 1584 [2011]). Respondent now moves for termination of the stayed suspension and provides a supporting affidavit indicating that the conditions of the stay have been fully complied with. Petitioner does not oppose the motion, which we now grant.

Lahtinen, J.P, McCarthy, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s motion is granted, and the stayed suspension imposed by this Court’s decision dated May 12, 2011 is terminated, effective immediately.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Henderson, Appellant.

Submitted February 23, 2009;

decided March 26, 2009

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2569 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of 

payments to teaching health centers that operate graduate medical education programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2023 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. VASQUEZ, and Mr. RUIZ) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

program of payments to teaching health centers that 

operate graduate medical education programs. 

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 ‘‘Doctors of Community 

5 Act’’ or the ‘‘DOC Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2569 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO 

2 TEACHING HEALTH CENTERS THAT OPERATE 

3 GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PRO4 GRAMS. 

5 Section 340H(g) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 256H(g)) is amended— 

7 (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as fol8 lows: 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—To carry out this section, 

10 there are appropriated, to remain available until ex11 pended, such sums as may be necessary, not to ex12 ceed— 

13 ‘‘(A) $230,000,000, for the period of fiscal 

14 years 2011 through 2015; 

15 ‘‘(B) $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

16 2016 and 2017; 

17 ‘‘(C) $126,500,000 for each of fiscal years 

18 2018 through 2023; 

19 ‘‘(D) $277,200,000 for fiscal year 2024; 

20 ‘‘(E) $378,400,000 for fiscal year 2025; 

21 ‘‘(F) $445,600,000 for fiscal year 2026; 

22 ‘‘(G) $448,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; 

23 ‘‘(H) $502,600,000 for fiscal year 2028; 

24 ‘‘(I) $517,700,000 for fiscal year 2029; 

25 ‘‘(J) $533,300,000 for fiscal year 2030; 

26 ‘‘(K) $549,300,000 for fiscal year 2031; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2569 IH

1 ‘‘(L) $565,700,000 for fiscal year 2032; 

2 ‘‘(M) $582,700,000 for fiscal year 2033; 

3 and 

4 ‘‘(N) for fiscal year 2034 and each fiscal 

5 year thereafter, the dollar amount applicable 

6 under this paragraph for the preceding fiscal 

7 year, adjusted in accordance with paragraph 

8 (3).’’; and 

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

10 ‘‘(3) ADJUSTMENT FOR INFLATION.—For pur11 poses of paragraph (1)(N), the dollar amount appli12 cable under paragraph (1) for fiscal years beginning 

13 after fiscal year 2033 shall be equal to the dollar 

14 amount applicable for the preceding fiscal year, in15 creased by the percentage increase in the medical 

16 care component of the consumer price index for all 

17 urban consumers (U.S. city average), as such per18 centage increase is estimated by the Secretary for 

19 the 12-month period ending with March of the pre20 vious year.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A2106. LYNN ARTHUR BROWN, SR. v. CAROLYN BROWN.

Lynn Arthur Brown, Sr. appealed to this Court from the trial court’s order

finding him in contempt of certain provisions of the parties’ divorce decree. Under

the Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6), the Supreme Court has

appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll divorce and alimony cases.” “[A]n appeal from the

judgment in a contempt action seeking to enforce any portion of [a] divorce decree

other than child custody is ancillary to divorce and alimony and falls within [the

Supreme] Court’s jurisdiction over ‘divorce and alimony cases.’ [Cits.]” Rogers v.

McGahee, 278 Ga. 287, 288 (1) (602 SE2d 582) (2004); see also Morris v. Morris,

284 Ga. 748, 750 (2) (670 SE2d 84) (2008). Therefore, this appeal is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

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.

07/23/2014

July 23, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00845]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM


Forms Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
Extension of Clearance

AGENCY: Selective Service System.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The following forms have been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for extension of clearance in compliance with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35):

SSS Form 1

    Title: The Selective Service System Registration Form.
    Purpose: Is used to register men and establish a data base for use 
in identifying manpower to the military services during a national 
emergency.
    Respondents: All 18-year-old males who are United States citizens 
and those male immigrants residing in the United States at the time of 
their 18th birthday are required to register with the Selective Service 
System.
    Frequency: Registration with the Selective Service System is a one-
time occurrence.
    Burden: A burden of two minutes or less on the individual 
respondent.
    Copies of the above identified form can be obtained upon written 
request to the Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 
1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of 
clearance of the form should be sent within 30 days of the publication 
of this notice to the Selective Service System, Reports Clearance 
Officer, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
    A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service 
System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 
Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: January 14, 2015.
Lawrence Romo,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-00845 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8015-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10486

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HAYWOOD BENARD HALL, also known as Haywood Hall, also known as 

Haywood Hall Johnson, also known as Haywood Johnson,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-167-1

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Haywood Benard 

Hall 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). Hall has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

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

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 20, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10486 Document: 00514353499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
No. 17-10486

2

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: 17-10486 Document: 00514353499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,981]


EFTEC North America LLC, Dayton, OH; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on January 22, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace 
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 888, on 
behalf of workers of EFTEC North America LLC, Dayton, Ohio.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10902 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



The certification
set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017
(the “Report”) for the purposes of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



I, Carlos Eduardo Moraes Calheiros, Chief
Financial Officer of Gafisa S.A., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gafisa S.A.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 14,
2018



|GAFISA S.A.
|-----------
|           
|By:        
|           
|
EX-10.41



 




Exhibit 10.41



Coffeyville Acquisition LLC

10 E. Cambridge Circle, Ste. 250

Kansas City, Kansas 66103




________ __, 2007




Goldman, Sachs & Co.

85 Broad Street

New York, New York 10004




Kelso & Company, L.P.

320 Park Avenue, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10022



Ladies and Gentlemen:




     Reference is made to that letter agreement, dated June 24, 2005, by and between Coffeyville
Acquisition LLC (the “Company”) and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“GS” and such letter, the
“GS Letter”), and that letter agreement, dated June 24, 2005, by and between the Company
and Kelso & Company, L.P. (“Kelso, and such letter, the “Kelso Letter”).



     The parties hereto acknowledge that, pursuant to each of the GS Letter and the Kelso Letter
(i) each of the GS Letter and the Kelso Letter will automatically terminate upon the consummation
of the initial public offering of shares of common stock of CVR Energy, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a direct subsidiary of the Company, and (ii) the Company’s obligations under each
of the GS Letter and Kelso Letter, including, without limitation, the Company’s obligations to
indemnify each member of the Goldman Group (as such term is defined in the GS Letter) and each
member of the Kelso Group (as such term is defined in the Kelso Letter) and to reimburse the
out-of-pocket expenses of the Goldman Group and the Kelso Group, will survive such termination.
The parties hereto further acknowledge and agree that the fee payable with respect to such
termination shall equal $10,000,000 ($5,000,000 to GS and $5,000,000 to Kelso).



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	COFFEYVILLE ACQUISITION LLC
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 

	 	 	 	Title:






 









 





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and accepted:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Name:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	KELSO & COMPANY, L.P.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	Kelso & Companies, Inc.,	 	 
	 	 	 	 	its general partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Name:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	 





[Signature Page to Letter
Agreement]
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
   FORM 6-K Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of:           May, 2004                                                               
                     Commission File No.: 1-11796 MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION(Name of registrant) 1600 Britannia Road East
Mississauga, Ontario
L4W 1J2 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) PREMDOR INC.
(Former Name of Registrant) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F: Form 20-F o                    Form 40-F þ 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): Yes o                    No þ 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): Yes o                    No þ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934: Yes o                    No þ If Yes is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): N/A




---



##### 



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. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONDate:  May 14, 2004
    By:
    /s/ Harley UlsterName:
    Harley UlsterTitle:
    Executive Vice-President
and Secretary




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    First Quarter Report to Shareholders/Press Release dated April 21, 2004