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

**No. 13**  **- 7204** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ANTHONY QUINN EDGERTON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 1:05

- cr - 00026

- MR

- 1 ; 1:12

- cv - 00225

- MR )

Submitted : January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Anthony Quinn Edgerton, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ant hony Quinn Edgerton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 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) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). 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 denie s relief 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.

* Although Edgerton filed a supplement to his § 2255 motion in which he raised alternative grounds for relief, Edgerton forfeited review of the district court’s denial of these alternative grounds by failing to address the denial in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ; see also United States v. Al

- Hamdi , 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument section of the opening brief are abandoned.”).3 We have independentl y reviewed the record and conclude that Edgerton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

###### Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Lana Shaughnessy, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E231, Washington, DC 20202-6335.                         *Telephone:*                         (202) 205-2528 or by                         *e-mail: Indian.education@ed.gov.*

If you use a TDD, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339. 

## VIII. Other Information 

*Accessible Format:*                         Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         in section VII of this notice.                     

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *http://www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister.*

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530. 

# Note:

                            The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register**                            . Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at:                             *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html.*

Dated: January 14, 2009. 

Kerri L. Briggs, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.

 [FR Doc. E9-1102 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7354

SHANE O’BRIAN WHITFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BOBBY SOLES, Unit #2, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-99-541-AM) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 29, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shane O’Brian Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 26, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 28, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Shane O’Brian Whitfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Whitfield v. Soles , No. CA-99-541-AM (E.D. Va. July 28, 1999). * 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
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): September 29, 2004 IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED   Canada
    
    0-12014
    
    98-0017682(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 111 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario,
    
    M5W 1K3(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code: (800) 567-3776     Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to
simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the
following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below): o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



ITEM 8.01. Other Events. On September 29, 2004, Imperial Oil Limited by means of a press release
announced that it will be relocating its head office from Toronto, Ontario to
Calgary, Alberta with completion of the move expected by August, 2005. ITEM 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.  (c)
    
    ExhibitsThe following exhibit is furnished as part of this Report on Form 8-K:  99.1
    
    Press release of Imperial Oil Limited announcing relocation of head office. 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 hereunto duly authorized. IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDDate: September 30, 2004By:
    /s/  John F. KyleName:
    John F. KyleTitle:
    Vice-President and TreasurerBy:
    /s/  Marilyn HendersonName:
    Marilyn HendersonTitle:
    Assistant Secretary
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.32 NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DECEMBER 18, 2003   * * * EXTRACT * * * Remuneration of Chairman of the Board RESOLVED, That the annual compensation to be paid to Mr. L.R. Wilson for his services
as Chairman of the Board of the Corporation and Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC) shall be
increased from US$360,000 per year to US$400,000 per year, effective January 1, 2004; Directors Remuneration RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, each Director of the Corporation who is not
a salaried employee of the Corporation, NNC, or any of its or their subsidiaries (each a Nortel
Networks Company), shall receive an annual Board retainer of US$60,000; RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, each member of a Board Committee who is not
a salaried employee of a Nortel Networks Company, shall be paid remuneration for services, as a
member of each Board Committee on which the member sits a retainer fee at the rate of US$12,500 per
annum; except that a retainer fee at the rate of US$6,250 per annum shall be paid to any member of
a Board Committee who is also a member of an identical committee of the NNC Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, any Chairman of a Board Committee (other
than the Audit Committee Chairman), who is not a salaried employee of a Nortel Networks Company,
shall be paid, in addition to the members retainer, a retainer fee at the rate of US$12,500 per
annum, except that an additional retainer fee at the rate of US$6,250 per annum shall be paid to
any Chairman of a Board Committee (other than the Audit Committee Chairman) who is also Chairman of
an identical committee of the NNC Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That, effective January 1, 2004, the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the
Board of Directors shall be paid, in addition to the members retainer, a
retainer fee at the rate of US$27,500 per annum, except that an additional retainer fee of
US$13,750 per annum shall be paid to the Chairman of the Audit Committee if he or she is also
chairman of the Audit Committee of the NNC Board of Directors; RESOLVED, That the Directors entitled to the remuneration provided for in the
preceding resolutions shall be reimbursed for the reasonable travel and living and




---



##### 



other expenses
properly incurred by them in attending any meeting of the Board of Directors or its Committees, or
for performing services as Directors; RESOLVED, That the remuneration provided for in these resolutions shall be paid
quarterly, in arrears, in United States dollars or, at the request of a Director, in the Canadian
dollar equivalent thereof; RESOLVED, That, for greater certainty, Directors shall not be paid an additional fee
for attendance at Board of Directors or Committee meetings;
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 STANTEC INC.
 Material Change Report
  1.
    
    Name and Address of Company:Stantec Inc. (Stantec or the
Corporation)
10160  112th Street
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T5K 2L6The reporting issuer has its principal office in Edmonton, Alberta.2.
    
    Date of Material Change:September 1, 20053.
    
    News Release:A news release was issued by Stantec on September 1, 2005 and disseminated through the
facilities of a recognized newswire service.4.
    
    Summary of Material Change:Stantec announced that it has entered into a $160 million credit facility.5.
    
    Full Description of Material Change:The directors of the Corporation passed a resolution on September 1, 2005 authorizing the
Corporation to enter into a $160 million credit facility. The arrangement is a revolving,
three-year credit facility and is available for acquisitions, for working capital, and for
general corporate purposes. It will also be used to finance part of the acquisition of The
Keith Companies Inc. (TKC), the closing of which is scheduled for September 15, 2005,
subject to approval of TKC shareholders.The credit facility is being made available by a syndicate of financial institutions and
is led by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, as administrative agent and arranger; Bank of Nova
Scotia, as syndication agent; Alberta Treasury Branches; and Canadian Western Bank.6.
    
    Reliance on Confidentiality Provisions of National Instrument:Not applicable.




---



##### 



7.
    
    Omitted Information:None.8.
    
    Executive Officer:The following officer of the Corporation is knowledgeable about this material change report
and may be contacted by the securities regulatory authorities:
 Jeffrey S. Lloyd
Vice President & Secretary
Stantec Inc.
10160  112th Street
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 2L6
 9.
    
    Date of Report:DATED at Edmonton, Alberta this 7th day of September, 2005.
##### 



Exhibit 24 POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and officers of
NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION (the Corporation), which is about to file with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the SEC), Washington, D.C. 20549, under the provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Annual Report) for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, hereby constitutes and appoints Nicholas J. DeRoma and Gordon
A. Davies his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, with full
power to act without the others, for him or her and in his or her name, place and stead, in any and
all capacities, to sign such Annual Report and any and all amendments thereto, and other documents
related thereto, with power where appropriate to affix the corporate seal of the Corporation
thereto and to attest said seal and to file such Annual Report and amendments thereto, with all
exhibits thereto, and any and all other information and documents in connection therewith, with the
SEC, hereby granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform any and all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done in and
about the premises, as fully as to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them,
may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed this Power of Attorney
this 10th day
of January, 2005. /s/ M. BISCHOFF
M. Bischoff
    
    /s/ J.J. BLANCHARD
J.J. Blanchard
    
    /s/ R.E. BROWN
R.E. Brown/s/ J.E. CLEGHORN
J.E. Cleghorn
    
    /s/ L.Y. FORTIER
L.Y. Fortier
    
    /s/ R.A. INGRAM
R.A. Ingram/s/ J.P. MANLEY
J.P. Manley
    
    /s/ W.A. OWENS
W.A. Owens
    
    /s/ G. SAUCIER
G. Saucier/s/ S.H. SMITH, JR.
S.H. Smith, Jr.
    
    /s/ L.R. WILSON
L.R. Wilson
#### In the Matter of Village of Chestnut Ridge et al., Respondents, et al., Petitioners/Plaintiffs, v Town of Ramapo et al., Appellants, and Scenic Development, LLC, Respondent.

Submitted February 17, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine an action or proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution and is not an order of the type provided for in CPLR 5602 (a) (2).
EXHIBIT 35.3

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                           HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC

                RALI SERIES 2007-QA3 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the period from and including
April 27, 2007 through and including  September  24, 2007 and of the  Servicer's
performance  under the  applicable  servicing  agreement  has been made under my
supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects  throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th
day of March 2008.

By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:  Managing Director
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with this Annual Report of China Advanced
Construction Materials Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period
ending June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof, each of the undersigned, being principal officers of the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year
      ending June 30, 2013, 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 such Annual Report on Form
      10-K/A for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

Date: October 28, 2013

/s/Xianfu
HanXianfu Han Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer)

/s/ Weili
HeWeili HeInterim Chief Financial Officer(interim
principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)

---
#### Quality Building Contractor, Inc., Respondent, v Delos Insurance Company, Formerly Known as Sirius America Insurance Company, Appellant-Respondent, and Utica First Insurance Company, Respondent-Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 546]

*506Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R Edmead, J.), entered May 22, 2012, which, in this action seeking a declaration as to insurance coverage, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant Delos Insurance Company, formerly known as Sirius America Insurance Company (Sirius), is obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff for all claims asserted in an underlying personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied. Cross appeal from same order and judgment (one paper), unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Although the court properly found that Sirius’s disclaimer of coverage based on a late notice of claim was ineffective as a matter of law *(see George Campbell Painting v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA,*92 AD3d 104, 106 [1st Dept 2012]), issues of fact exist with respect to the timeliness of Sirius’s disclaimer of coverage based on an exclusion endorsement in the subject insurance policy *(see Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Gray,*49 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2007]). Indeed, a trier of fact should determine when the grounds for the exclusion endorsement disclaimer were “readily apparent” to Sirius, and whether Sirius reasonably delayed issuing its disclaimer during its investigation into the applicability of the endorsement *(id.*at 4).

Defendant Utica First Insurance Company’s cross appeal is dismissed, as it is not an “aggrieved party” within the meaning of CPLR 5511. Indeed, it withdrew its motion for summary judgment, and it takes no position on Sirius’s appeal. In any event, we note that plaintiffs status as an additional insured under a policy issued by Utica to plaintiffs subcontractor, and Utica’s coverage obligations or lack thereof to plaintiff, are in dispute and have not been fully litigated or determined. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 34 Misc 3d 1237(A), 2012 NY Slip Op 50448(U).]
1 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

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 00-40705

Summary Calendar

___________________________

GERARDO LOPEZ; ET AL,

PlaintiffS,

GERARDO LOPEZ; ERASMO ANZALDUA; LIZA MURILLO; 

MIGUEL A. BARRERA; ROGELIO BUENO BARRERA; ET AL,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

RAYMOND T. CRUZ; JUAN DE LOS SANTOS; RICHARDO GALLARDO; 

RENE R. GARZA; JESSIE RODRIGUEZ; ET AL, 

Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

COUNTY OF HIDALGO, TEXAS, 

Defendant-Intervenor Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Texas, McAllen Division

May 22, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Following a review of the record, we find that we are

without jurisdiction over this appeal for the following reasons: 
First, the order referenced in the Notice of Appeal, specifically

the “Granting of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, of

January 7, 2000,” is not a final order disposing of all claims of

all parties before the District Court and was not designated as a

final order by the District Court pursuant to Rule 54(b),

F.R.C.P. Second, the Order of Dismissal entered by the District

Court on May 19, 2000, disposing of the claims of the remaining

twelve plaintiffs, does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 58

that the judgment be set forth in a separate document. 

Because no appealable judgment has been entered, this appeal

is DISMISSED.