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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1520

DARLENE BENNETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GINA RAIMONDO, Secretary of Commerce,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:22-cv-02972-DLB)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darlene Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1520 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Darlene Bennett appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, on Bennett’s retaliation claim, 

brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e17, and affirming an order of the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining the United 

States Department of Commerce’s decision to remove Bennett. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Bennett v. Raimondo, No. 8:22-cv-02972-DLB (D. Md. filed Mar. 31, 2024 & entered Apr. 

1, 2024). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1520 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
NO. 07-03-0396 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L D DECEM BER 15, 2003

______________________________ KEVIN M. McELROY,

Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 36 4TH DIST RICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUN TY; NO. 2002-400,31 8; HON. BILLY JOHN EDWARDS, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Order of Dism issal

_______________________________ Before QUINN, REAVIS and CAMP BELL, JJ. Pending before the court is the appeal of Ke vin M. M cElroy (appellant). W e abated the ma tter to the trial court on Novem ber 26 , 20 03, becaus e ap pella nt f ailed to f ile his brief. At the hearing convened by the trial court per our dire ctive, a ppe llant

info rm ed it

that he no longer car ed to prosecute his appeal. The trial court m emorialized the representation in its findings of fact and con cl us io ns of la w. So too w

as the representation2

mem orialized in appellant’s motion to dismiss that was f iled with the trial court and signed by both appellant and his counsel. Accordingl y, w e re instate theapp eal and dismiss it upon appellant’s request

. Having so dism iss ed it , nom otio n fo r re hea ring w ill be ent ert aine d, a nd o ur m and ate w ill issue forthwith.

Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish.
Case 2:11-cv-00304-KSH-CLW Document 138 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 3748
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 358
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 359
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 360
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 361
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 362
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 363
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 364
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 365
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 366
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 367
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 368
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 369
Case 2:11-cv-00630-DMC -JAD Document 21 Filed 01/12/12 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 370
ACCEPTED

12-14-00181-cr

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/27/2015 12:00:00 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/25/2015 8:13:04 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE**

 

**OFFICEROF HILAND HOLDINGS GP, LP**

 

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months endedSeptember 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph L. Griffin, Chief Executive Officer andPresident of Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC, the general partner of HilandHoldings GP, LP (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | Date: November 9, 2007 | /s/ Joseph L. Griffin                   |   |
|--------|------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                   | Joseph L. Griffin                       |
|   |                   | Chief Executive Officer  and  President |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2076

JERRY L. GENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA INTERMONT COLLEGE, Defendant- Appellee, and ANNE SHUMAKER; REBECCA WATSON, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-97-101-A) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 23, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry L. Gent, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Bruce Dickert, WARREN & DICKERT, Bristol, Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders reassigning thecase to a different judge, granting one Defendant’s motion to dismiss and the remaining Defendants’ motion for summary judgment anddismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Gent v. Virginia Intermont College , No. CA-97-101-A (W.D. Va. July 14, 1997 & Feb. 10 & July 9, 1998). We also deny Appellant’s motion for a ruling concerning service. Appellant’s claims raised on appeal concerning an alleged violation of the Freedom of Information Act and a person not a Defendant in the instant action are not properly before this Court. 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
[896 NYS2d 796]

#### Wassfam, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Ike Ude et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 29, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler Nahins & Goidel, EC.,*New York City, for appellants. *Green & Cohen, EC.,*New York City, for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

*91Order, entered July 25, 2008, reversed, with $10 costs, and landlord’s motion for summary judgment of possession is granted. Execution of the warrant of eviction shall be stayed for 30 days from service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Petitioner landlord demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the holdover petition, by establishing that the building premises were subject to stabilization coverage solely as a result of the predecessor owner’s participation in the former J-51 tax abatement program *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-243) and that respondent Ude’s tenancy began several years after the J-51 tax abatement expired *(see Ogando v Pamela Equities Corp.,*44 AD3d 367 [2007]; *155 Wooster, LLC v Dalrymple,*21 Misc 3d 138[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52306[U] [2008]). In opposition, respondent failed to raise a triable issue. That the predecessor owner conditionally agreed to provide respondent with a rent-stabilized lease in settling a prior eviction proceeding brought in 2003 against the (then) record tenant did not serve to confer full stabilization protection upon respondent *(see 546 W. 156th St. HDFC v Smalls,*43 AD 3d 7 [2007]; *cf. Matter of Carrano v Castro,*44 AD3d 1038 [2007]), at least in these circumstances, where the record before us contains no indication that respondent complied with the nonmonetary condition specified in the settlement stipulation and shows that the stipulating parties consistently treated respondent’s tenancy as unregulated by entering into a series of unregulated lease and renewal agreements.

McKeon, EJ., Schoenfeld and Heitler, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 10.24

 

AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.

 

SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE

 

The undersigned, Edward M. Schulman, hereby certifies that he is the Secretary of AvalonBay Communities, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and does further certify as follows:

 

On December 6, 2006, at a duly called and held meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company, the Board adopted the following resolutions amending the Company’s 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated on December 8, 2004, and further amended on February 9, 2006:

 

RESOLVED:                    Paragraph Section 3(b) of the Company’s 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated on December 8, 2004, as subsequently amended on February 9, 2006, is hereby amended by adding the following sentences at the end of the first sentence thereof:

 

The Committee shall also make equitable or proportionate adjustments in the number of shares subject to outstanding Awards and the exercise price and/or the terms of outstanding Awards to take into account cash dividends declared and paid other than in the ordinary course or any other extraordinary corporate event, other than those contemplated by Section 3(c) hereof, to the extent determined to be necessary by the Committee to avoid distortion in the value of the Awards. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Section 3(b), no adjustment shall be required pursuant to this Section 3(b) if the Committee determines that such action could cause an Award to fail to satisfy the conditions of any applicable exception from the requirements of Section 409A of the Code or otherwise could subject a participant to the additional tax imposed under Section 409A of the Code in respect of an outstanding Award or would constitute a modification, extension or renewal of an Incentive Stock Option within the meaning of Section 424(b) of the Code.

 

RESOLVED:                    Section 7(a) of the Company’s 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and restated on December 8, 2004, as subsequently amended on February 9, 2006, is hereby amended by adding the following sentences at the end thereof:

 

“Participants may not elect to accelerate or postpone the deferral period. Any payment of shares of Stock under a Deferred Stock Award subject to Section 409A of the Code to a participant on account of the participant’s separation of service may not be made before the date that is six months after the date of separation from service if the participant is a ‘specified employee’ within the meaning of Section 409A(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Code.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this certificate as of December 6, 2006

 

	
 
    	
AVALONBAY   COMMUNITIES, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   Edward M. Schulman
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Edward M. Schulman
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Secretary
905 A.2d 875

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS DAWKINS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 8, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce, 188 N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARIO N. BAKER, a/k/a Mario Nathaniel Baker,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:08-cr-00088-REP-RCY-1; 3:15-cv-00144-REP-RCY)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Nathaniel Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United

States Attorneys, Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United 

States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mario N. Baker seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as successive and unauthorized 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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-

85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Baker 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 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32945-32946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16098]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, August 5, 2009, 8 a.m. to 
August 6, 2009, 5 p.m., Marriott Bethesda North Hotel and Conf. Ctr., 
Bethesda, MD which was published in the Federal Register on June 26, 
2009, 74FR30592.

[[Page 32946]]

    This notice is amended to change the title from ``NCI-ARRA Grand 
Opportunities--Stem Cells'' to ``NCI-ARRA Grand Opportunities--Stem 
Cells/Cell Biology''. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16098 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
908 A.2d 180

#### IN THE MATTER OF BERNARD J. MCBRIDE, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

October 18, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-082, concluding that BERNARD J. McBRIDE, JR., formerly of DEPTFORD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, and who was transferred to disability inactive status pursuant to *Rule*1:20-12, by Order of the Court filed on September 21, 2005, should be reprimanded for violating *RPC*1.1(a) (gross neglect), *RPC*1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), *RPC*1.4(a) and (b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of matter, and failure to explain matter to extent reasonably necessary to permit client to make informed decisions regarding representation), *RPC*1.15(a) (failure to safeguard clients’ and third parties’ funds), *RPC*1.15(b) (failure to promptly disburse clients’ and third parties’ funds), and *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BERNARD J. McBRIDE, JR., is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

*389ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16155]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-615-000; ER07-1257-000; ER08-1113-000; ER08-1178-000; 
ER09-241-000; ER09-1048-000; ER09-1281-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
FERC Staff Attendance

June 29, 2009.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives 
notice that on the following dates members of its staff will 
participate in teleconferences and meetings to be conducted by the 
California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The agenda and other 
documents for the teleconferences and meetings are available on the 
CAISO's Web site, http://www.caiso.com.
    June 30, 2009--Market Surveillance Committee.
    July 1, 2009--Settlements and Market Clearing User Group. 
Congestion Revenue Rights.
    July 2, 2009--Market Issues.
    July 7, 2009--Systems Interface User Group.
    July 8, 2009--Congestion Revenue Rights. Settlements and Market 
Clearing User Group.
    July 9, 2009--Market Issues. Convergence Bidding Meeting.
    July 14, 2009--Systems Interface User Group.
    July 15, 2009--Settlements and Market Clearing User Group. 
Congestion Revenue Rights.
    July 16, 2009--Market Issues. Transmission Maintenance Coordination 
Committee Meeting.
    Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconferences and meetings are open 
to all market participants, and Commission staff's attendance is part 
of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconferences and 
meetings may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets.
    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4c7d5d1d1d09ad2d5c6c6dbdfdcc4d5cdf4d2d1c6d79ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0675676363622860677474696d6e76677f466063746528616970">[email protected]</span></a>; (916) 294-0322 or Maury Kruth at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0ddd1c5c2c99edbc2c5c4d8f0d6d5c2d39ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5989480878cdb9e8780819db593908796db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>, (916) 294-0275.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16155 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
S04Y1021.

#### IN THE MATTER OF DAVID T. STECKLER.

(602 SE2d 639)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to the Notice of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that Respondent *383David T. Steckler violated Rule 9.4 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, of Bar Rule 4-102 (d), the maximum sanction for which is disbarment.

Decided September 13, 2004.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Elizabeth M. Williamson, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

According to the facts set forth in the Notice of Discipline, the Investigative Panel of the State Disciplinary Board found probable cause as to the following: Steckler, who was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1982, was also licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia from April 26, 1983 until July 16, 1999; until October 1999, Steckler was registered as an attorney settlement agent with the Virginia State Bar; in July 1999 Steckler acted as a settlement agent for a client in a home mortgage refinancing; Steckler closed the loan for the client and deposited the loan disbursement check into his attorney trust account; the HUD Settlement Statement directed Steckler to make certain disbursements on the client’s behalf; Steckler issued a check in the amount of $96,830.41 from his attorney trust account made payable to NationsBank as payment in full of the client’s mortgage loan; Steckler’s check was returned for insufficient funds and was never honored; Steckler failed to account for the fiduciary funds he held on the client’s behalf; and, as a result of this behavior, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board revoked Steckler’s license to practice law in Virginia.

Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel determined that disbarment would be the appropriate disciplinary sanction for Steckler in this State as well, noting in aggravation that Steckler failed to respond to a properly served Notice of Investigation. Although Steckler was properly served with the Notice of Discipline by publication pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii), he has not responded in any manner. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth above, we agree with the State Bar’s recommendation and find that disbarment is the warranted sanction in this case and Steckler hereby is disbarred from the practice of law in Georgia. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Disbarred.*

*All the Justices concur.*