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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6126

STEPHEN T. JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MR. SMITH, the Captain of the Burke County

Jail, Morgantown, North Carolina; VERA DOE,

Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail,

individually and in her official capacity;

SANDY DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke

County Jail, individually and in her official

capacity; DIANN DOE, Correctional Officer at

the Burke County Jail, individually and in her

official capacity; CATHY DOE, Correctional

Officer at the Burke County Jail, individually

and in her official capacity; CANDY DOE, Correctional Officer at the Burke County Jail,

individually and in her official capacity;

PHILLIS BANNER, Nurse at the Burke County

Jail, individually and in her official capacity; JOHN DOE 1, Dietician at the Burke County

Jail, individually and in his official capacity; JANE DOE 1, Dietician at the Burke County

Jail, individually and in her official capacity; JOHN DOE 2, Sergeant at the Burke County

Jail, individually and in his official capacity; JANE DOE 2, Sergeant at the Burke County

Jail, individually and in her official

capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CA-95-193-4-MU)
2
3

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 5, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen T. Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Jones v. Smith, No. CA-95-193-4-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 1996).

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
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2665 

To extend the suspension of duty on mixtures of cyhalothrin and application 

adjuvants. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

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

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on mixtures of cyhalothrin 

and application adjuvants. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF CYHALOTHRIN AND APPLICA4 TION ADJUVANTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.09 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 mixtures of cyhalothrin and application adjuvants) is 

8 amended by striking the date in the effective period col9 umn and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2665 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### Andrew L. MEEKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Craig FARWELL; et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 08-15447.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 22, 2009.

Andrew L. Meeks, Ely, NV, pro se.

Dennis Cavanagh Wilson, Senior Deputy Attorney General, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Andrew L. Meeks appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Meeks contends that his conviction for five counts of use of a minor in producing pornography violates his First Amendment right to free expression. We conclude that the state court’s decision rejecting this claim was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *see also New York v. Ferber,*458 U.S. 747, 764, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982).

Meeks also contends that his rights to due process and equal protection were violated by the state court’s interpretation of the statutory definition of the term “minor.” However, alleged errors in the ap*504plication of state law are generally not cognizable in federal habeas corpus. *See Hubbart v. Knapp,*379 F.3d 773, 779-80 (9th Cir.2004); *see also Langford v. Day,*110 F.3d 1380, 1389 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that a petitioner may not “transform a state-law issue into a federal one merely by asserting a violation of due process”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive OfficerPursuant to
U.S.C. Section 1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Edward J. Quilty, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Derma Sciences, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
2006 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the Form 10-KSB) upon my best knowledge and
belief fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Derma Sciences, Inc.

|Dated:  March 30, 2007 | /s/ Edward J. QuiltyEdward J. Quilty
     Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2655 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2655

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures or 
     coprecipitates of lanthanum phosphate, cerium-doped lanthanum 
          phosphate, cerium phosphate, and terbium phosphate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

  Mr. Bunning introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures or 
     coprecipitates of lanthanum phosphate, cerium-doped lanthanum 
          phosphate, cerium phosphate, and terbium phosphate.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OR COPRECIPITATES OF LANTHANUM PHOSPHATE, CERIUM 
              PHOSPHATE, AND TERBIUM PHOSPHATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.05 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures or coprecipitates 
of lanthanum phosphate, cerium-doped lanthanum phosphate, cerium 
phosphate, and terbium phosphate) is amended by striking the date in 
the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6942.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 6, 2006.

*221Calvin Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Edmund McNulty, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 54064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25219]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5300-C-23]


HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 NOFA for the HOPE VI Revitalization 
Grants Program; Technical Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: On July 14, 2009, HUD posted its Notice of Funding 
Availability (NOFA) for the HOPE VI Revitalization Grants Program for 
Fiscal Year 2009. The technical corrections to the NOFA are available 
on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/hopevi and http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/nofa09/grphopevirevi.cfm, and on the 
Grants.gov Web site at http://www.grants.gov. The CFDA number for the 
HOPE VI Revitalization program is 14.866. The deadline for HOPE VI 
Revitalization grant applications under this NOFA remains unchanged 
(November 17, 2009).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning these 
technical corrections, please contact Ms. Leigh van Rij, Office of 
Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-5788 (this is not a 
toll-free number); e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfb3bab6b8b780baf180a9beb180adb6b59fb7aabbf1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660a030f010e3903483910070839140f0c260e130248010910">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons with 
hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers via TTY by 
calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Dated: October 14, 2009.
Sandra B. Henriquez,
Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. E9-25219 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P


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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2488 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2488

        To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium hypophosphite.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Graham introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on sodium hypophosphite.

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

SECTION 1. SODIUM HYPOPHOSPHITE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Sodium              Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          hypophosphite                                                      31/2011.......
                          (CAS No. 10039-56-
                          2) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          2835.10.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2514 

To suspend temporarily the duty on o-Dichlorobenzene. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on o-Dichlorobenzene. 

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

3 SECTION 1. O-DICHLOROBENZENE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 o-Dichlorobenzene (CAS No. 

95–50–1) (provided for in 

subheading 2903.61.20) ........ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2514 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-31183 Conference Calendar

HAI VAN NGUYEN, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JOSEPH P. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CV-1458

-------------------- Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Hai Van Nguyen (Nguyen), federal prisoner # 18720-018, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Nguyen was sentenced to 165 months in prison based on convictions for racketeering, conspiring to engage in racketeering, conspiring to interfere with commerce by robbery, and interfering with commerce by robbery. Nguyen attempted to challenge the method by which the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) calculates good time credits, but the district courtNo. 04-31183 -2- dismissed the petition because Nguyen had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his petition in federal
court. Because Nguyen is a federal prisoner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he is not required to obtain a certificate of appealability. See Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5thCir. 2001). Nguyen concedes that he did not exhaust the threelevel administrative remedy process. He asserts, however, that his failure to exhaust should be excused because pursuing administrative relief would be futile and because he would suffer irreparable harm by following the administrative process. Nguyen has not established that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his petition without prejudice. See Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). The judgment is thus
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32-1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Financial Report of NoFire Technologies, Inc. on Form
10QSB for the Quarter ended 2/28/05 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Sam Gottfried, Chief Executive Officer  of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to  906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: April 19, 2005

Name  /s/ Sam Gottfried (CEO)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that  appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to NoFire Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by NoFire Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1838-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


West Virginia; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated May 15, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 15, 2009.

    McDowell and Raleigh Counties for Individual Assistance and 
Public Assistance.
    Mercer County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant).

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-12851 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HearUSA, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ending March 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned,
Stephen J. Hansbrough, Chief Executive Officer and Gino Chouinard, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of our knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.. /s/Stephen J. HansbroughStephen J. HansbroughChief Executive OfficerHearUSA, Inc.August 10, 2004/s/Gino ChouinardGino ChouinardChief Financial OfficerHearUSA, Inc.August 10, 2004
The District Court of the 22nd Judicial District. County of Carbon.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. LEWIS PRICE, III, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-05-20 DECISION

On December 11, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to ten (10) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Criminal Endangerment, a felony. The Defendant is not eligible for parole for the entire term of ten (10) years.

On August 5, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are *65insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 5th day of August, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

Alternate Chairperson, Hon. Richard Simonton, Member, Hon. Ray Dayton and Alternate Member Hon. John Warner.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Alvarez, Appellant.

Submitted March 28, 2011;

decided April 28, 2011

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.