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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2760

MAGGIE YVONNE BOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH; THE

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE

CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH; TRUSTEES

OF ST. JAMES CME CHURCH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-2-L)

Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maggie Yvonne Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Joy Lee Price, CASKIE &

FROST, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief in her employment discrimination action. 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. Boyd v. The Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, No. CA-95-

2-L (W.D. Va. Aug. 8, 1995). 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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DeAngelo Lavale THORPE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7522.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

DeAngelo Lavale Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*325PER CURIAM:

DeAngelo Lavale Thorpe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thorpe 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7401

RICKY VINCENT PENDLETON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. RALPH TERRY, Acting Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 3:17

- cv - 00130

- JPB

- RWT )

Submitted : February 26, 2019 Decided: March 1, 2019

Before KING , THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ricky Vincent Pendleton , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky Vincent Pendleton , a state pris oner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeala bility. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 prison er 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, 3 36

- 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Sla ck , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pendleton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We d ispense 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.
DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1305 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1305

To establish a Federal cost share percentage for the Milk River Project 
                        in the State of Montana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 2, 2019

Mr. Tester (for himself and Mr. Daines) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a Federal cost share percentage for the Milk River Project 
                        in the State of Montana.

    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 ``St. Mary's Reinvestment Act''.

SEC. 2. COST SHARE FOR THE MILK RIVER PROJECT.

    (a) Definition of Milk River Project.--
            (1) In general.--In this Act, the term ``Milk River 
        Project'' means the Bureau of Reclamation project authorized by 
        the Secretary of the Interior on March 14, 1903, under the Act 
        of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093), commencing at 
        Lake Sherburne and providing water to a point approximately 6 
        miles east of Nashua, Montana.
            (2) Inclusions.--The term ``Milk River Project'' includes--
                    (A) Swiftcurrent Dike;
                    (B) Lake Sherburne;
                    (C) Nelson and Fresno dams, dikes, and reservoirs;
                    (D) St. Mary, Dodson, Vandalia, and Paradise 
                Diversion dams;
                    (E) Dodson pumping plant; and
                    (F) associated siphons, canals, drops, laterals, 
                and drains.
    (b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the operation, 
maintenance, repair, and replacement of the Milk River Project shall be 
75 percent, which shall not be reimbursable to the United States.
                                 <all>
```
Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 1 of 11 PageID: 19858

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 2 of 11 PageID: 19859

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 3 of 11 PageID: 19860

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 4 of 11 PageID: 19861

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 5 of 11 PageID: 19862

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 6 of 11 PageID: 19863

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 7 of 11 PageID: 19864

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 8 of 11 PageID: 19865

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 9 of 11 PageID: 19866

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 10 of 11 PageID: 19867

Case 2:11-cv-01210-JMV-SCM   Document 469-2   Filed 06/21/19   Page 11 of 11 PageID: 19868
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1772

MARK A. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAVY BROADCASTING, INCORPORATED; LIN TELEVISION CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-461-2) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark A. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. William McCardell Furr, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mark A. Ward appeals the district court’s order holding him in civil contempt of its September 30, 2002 pre-filing injunction order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ward v. WAVY Broad., Inc. , No. CA-99-461-2 (E.D. Va. filed June 17, 2003 & entered June 18, 2003). We deny Ward’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
PRK-EX4.2(c)-2012.12.31-10K






Exhibit 4.2(c)
















February 21, 2013


Wilmington Trust Company
Rodney Square North
1100 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19890-0001
Attention:  Corporate Trust Administration


C. Daniel DeLawder
David L. Trautman
Brady T. Burt
c/o Park National Corporation
50 North Third Street
Newark, Ohio 43055


		
	Re:
	Notice of Removal of Administrative Trustee and Appointment of Successor 


Ladies and Gentlemen:
The following notice is given pursuant to Section 8.11 of the Amended and Restated Trust Agreement for Vision Bancshares Trust I (the “Trust”), dated as of December 5, 2005 (the “Trust Agreement”).
We make reference to the Junior Subordinated Indenture, dated as of December 5, 2005 (the “Indenture”), originally between Vision Bancshares, Inc., an Alabama corporation (the “Predecessor Company”), and Wilmington Trust Company, a Delaware banking corporation (the “Trustee”), the First Supplemental Indenture, dated to be effective as of 6 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, on March 9, 2007, among Park National Corporation, an Ohio corporation (the “Company”), the Predecessor Company and the Trustee, and the Trust Agreement.  
With immediate effect, in connection with his resignation as an executive officer and employee of the Company, effective December 31, 2012, the Company, as the holder of the Common Securities of the Trust, removed John W. Kozak from his position of Administrative Trustee of the Trust, effective December 19, 2012.   
The Company hereby appoints Brady T. Burt, to serve as successor Administrative Trustee of the Trust (the “Successor Administrative Trustee”), and the Successor Administrative Trustee hereby accepts appointment to such position, from and after the date and time of this notice, as evidenced by his signature below.
Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined are used as defined in the Trust Agreement.  This Notice of Removal of Administrative Trustee and Appointment of Successor may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.









This Notice of Removal of Administrative Trustee and Appointment of Successor is given and made and is effective as of 9:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, on February 21, 2013.
	
		
	 
	 

	

SUCCESSOR ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEE:


By:  _/s/ Brady T. Burt________
Name: Brady T. Burt




CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE TRUSTEES:




By:  _/s/ C. Daniel DeLawder___
Name: C. Daniel DeLawder
	



















By:  _/s/ David L. Trautman__
Name: David L. Trautman

	



	 

	 
	 

	PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION




By:  _/s/ Brady T. Burt______
Name:  Brady T. Burt
Title:    Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES INC.,:

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 11-230 (FSH)

:

v. :

:

ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC., :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

:

PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES INC.,:

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 11-1241 (FSH)

:

v. :

:

ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC., :

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION

This matter having come before the Court by way of submissions dated February 13,

2012, February 20, 2012, and February 28, 2012 regarding certain privilege challenges;

and the Court having considered the submissions, the record of proceedings, and the

governing law;

and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion delivered on the record on March 12, 2012;

and for good cause shown,

IT IS ON THIS 12th day of March, 2012

ORDERED that, with respect to Entries Nos. 5, 6, 13-15, 22, 31, 39, 41, 44-46, 48, 50-

Case 2:11-cv-00230-FSH -PS Document 55 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1375
53, 61, 62, 66, 67, 73-78, 82, 84, 90, 91, 96, 97, 101, 103, 104, 107, 110, 116, 118, 124-127, 129,

130, 132, 134-137, 143, 147, 152, 156, 160-164, 167-170, and 174-176, no later than March 23,

2012, the plaintiff shall produce the emails that redact with privileged information together with

the attachments or provide the Bates No. of the attachment and the entry on the privilege log to

which it had been attached; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assertion over the common-interest doctrine as the

basis to withhold Entries 7-9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 21, 23, and 27 is overruled and said documents

shall be produced no later than March 19, 2012.

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:11-cv-00230-FSH -PS Document 55 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1376
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7070

CRAIG O. COPLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-90-47-HC) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Craig O. Copley, Appellant Pro Se. Eileen Coffey Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Craig O. Copley appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the court's earlier orderdenying his motion for a transfer. Because Copley's motion was untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), his motion should be construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We review the district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). Relief is not authorized under Rule 60(b) where the motion raises no new arguments, but merely requests the district court to "change its mind." United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir. 1982). Copley's motion provided no new grounds for reliefand only reflected his disagreement with the court's earlier decision. Where a motion is for reconsideration of legal issues already addressed in an earlier ruling, the motion "is not authorized by Rule 60(b)." Id. at 313. Therefore, the motion was "properly rejected by the district court." Id. ; see also Hartman v. Lauchli , 304 F.2d 431, 432 (8th Cir. 1962) ("Rule 60(b) was not intended as a substitute for a direct appeal from an erroneous judgment. The fact that a judgment is erroneous does not constitute a ground for relief under that Rule."). Accordingly, the order of the district court is affirmed. 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
Tuesday, July 16, 2013 www.bls.gov

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) Survey

Methods Symposium

Contact the CE Workshop Team • CE_Symposium_Workshop_2013@bls.gov • 

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxannualworkshop.htm • (202) 691-6900

12:30-1:00 p.m. Registration Central Reception Area 

 

1:00-1:15 p.m. Welcome and Logistics—Adam Safir Conference Rooms 1 and 2

1:15-2:30 p.m. Small Scale Redesign Changes 

 Testing Web Diaries: Preliminary Findings—Ian Elkin

 Imputing Across Interviews: Balancing Time Savings with Data Quality

Concerns—Geoffrey Paulin 

 Use of Financial Records in the CE Survey—Brandon Kopp 

2:30-2:45 p.m. Break

2:45-4:00 p.m. Gemini Project to Redesign the CE 

 A Comparison of Consumer Expenditure Surveys—Nhien To and Brett McBride 

 Overview of the Proposed CE Redesign—Laura Paszkiewicz 

 Assessing Measurement Error in the CE—Roger Tourangeau, Westat 

 

4:00-4:30 p.m. Concluding Remarks and Q&A
Exhibit 32.2

Certification

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

> 
(1) I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

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

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P.

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Thomas A. Williams, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 2, 2008



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas A. Williams                              
|Thomas A. Williams                                  
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16280]



[[Page 32891]]

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1629]


Approval for Manufacturing Authority, Foreign-Trade Zone 106, 
Industrial Gasket, Inc. d/b/a International Group (Metal Fabrication), 
Mustang, Oklahoma

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Port Authority of the Greater Oklahoma City Area, 
grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 106, has requested manufacturing 
authority on behalf of Industrial Gasket, Inc. d/b/a International 
Group (IG), within FTZ 106 in Mustang, Oklahoma (FTZ Docket 37-2008, 
filed 5/28/2008);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (73 FR 31811-31812, 6/4/2008) and the application has 
been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application for manufacturing authority under zone procedures 
within FTZ 106 on behalf of IG, as described in the application and 
Federal Register notice, is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.
    Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of June 2009.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16280 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Case 2:11-cr-00132-DRD Document 18 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 33
Case 2:11-cr-00132-DRD Document 18 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 34
Case 2:11-cr-00132-DRD Document 18 Filed 07/09/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 35
Case 2:11-cr-00132-DRD Document 18 Filed 07/09/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 36