alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Israel CHACON-VEGA, Appellant.

No. 07-1510.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 31, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 6, 2008.

David R. Ferguson, Wendy L. Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s *731Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Appellee.

Israel Chacon-Vega, White Deer, PA, pro se.

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Israel Chacon-Vega, a federal inmate incarcerated in Pennsylvania, appeals the judgment of the district court denying his “Petition for a Waiver” of a $1,000 fine imposed as part of the sentence he received in 2005 upon pleading guilty to an immigration offense. Because he did not directly appeal his 2005 sentence, it is now final and non-appealable.

After careful review of the record and considering all plausible constructions of Chacon-Vega’s petition, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it. *See Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir.2004) (pro se complaint should be given liberal construction); *Thomas v. Basham,,*931 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir.1991) (“jurisdiction issues will be raised sua sponte by a federal court when there is an indication that jurisdiction is lacking”). First, only the government may bring a petition to remit a fine under 18 U.S.C. § 3573. *See United States v. Linker,*920 F.2d 1, 1-2 (7th Cir.1990) (under current version of § 3573, defendant has no right to request remission of fine). Further, a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the execution of a sentence must be filed in the district where the petitioner is incarcerated. *See Lee v. Wetzel,*244 F.3d 370, 373-74 (5th Cir.2001) (“we have firmly stated that the district of incarceration is the only district that has jurisdiction to entertain a defendant’s § 2241 petition”); *United States v. Leath,*711 F.2d 119, 120 (8th Cir.1983) (case remanded to district court to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner, who was challenging execution of his sentence under § 2241, did not file action in district where he was confined); *cf. Matheny v. Morrison,*307 F.3d 709, 711-12 (8th Cir.2002) (where petitioners correctly framed claims regarding fine payment schedules as § 2241 claims and brought them in district where petitioners were incarcerated, district court erred in holding it did not have jurisdiction over such claims). Finally, a challenge to the imposition of a fine is not cognizable in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. *Cf. United States v. Bernard,*351 F.3d 360, 361 (8th Cir.2003) (inmate cannot challenge restitution portion of his sentence using § 2255 because statute affords relief only to prisoners claiming right to be released from custody).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the petition without prejudice.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                              POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors
and/or officers of TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY (Company), a
Delaware corporation, acting in its capacity as general partner of TEPPCO
Partners, L.P., does hereby constitute and appoint WILLIAM L. THACKER, CHARLES
H. LEONARD AND JAMES C. RUTH, and each of them, his true and lawful attorney
and agent to do any and all acts and things, and execute any and all
instruments which, with the advise and consent of Counsel, said attorney and
agent may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the
Securities Act of 1934, as Amended, and any rules, regulations, and
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including specifically,
but without limitation thereof, to sign his name as a director and/or officer
of the Company to the Form 10-K Report for TEPPCO Partners, L.P. for the year
ended December 31, 1997, and to any instrument or document filed as a part of,
or in accordance with, said Form 10-K or Amendment thereto; and the undersigned
do hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney and agent shall do or cause
to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents
this 3rd day of March, 1998.



/s/  W. L. THACKER                            /s/  PAUL M. ANDERSON       
-------------------------                     ----------------------------
W. L. Thacker                                 Paul M. Anderson


/s/  JAMES T. HACKETT                         /s/  JIM W. MOGG                
-------------------------                     ----------------------------
James T. Hackett                              Jim W. Mogg


/s/  RUTH G. SHAW                             /s/  DERRILL CODY                
-------------------------                     ----------------------------
Ruth G. Shaw                                  Derrill Cody


/s/  MILTON CARROLL                           /s/  CARL D. CLAY               
-------------------------                    ----------------------------
Milton Carroll                                Carl D. Clay


/s/  JOHN P. DESBARRES                        /s/  CHARLES H. LEONARD  
-------------------------                     ----------------------------
John P. DesBarres                             Charles H. Leonard
                                              Senior Vice President,
                                              CFO & Treasurer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20575]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4334-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]


Iowa; 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 Iowa (FEMA-4334-DR), dated August 27, 2017, and 
related determinations.

DATES: The amendment was issued on September 8, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael R. 
Scott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Michael L. Parker as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20575 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY RONNELL PERKINS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

J. S. WOODFORD; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-17453

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01177-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 27, 2011** 

Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Gary Ronnell Perkins, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

OCT 11 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-17453

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Perkins’s Eighth

Amendment claim because Perkins failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact

as to whether treatment by prison medical staff of his hernia and related pain

constituted deliberate indifference. See id. at 1058 (a prison official acts with

deliberate indifference only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to

inmate health, and a difference of opinion concerning the appropriate course of

treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference); Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d

732, 746 (9th Cir. 2002) (where a prisoner is alleging that delay of medical

treatment evinces deliberate indifference, he must show that the delay led to further

injury). 

The district court properly construed Perkins’s Fourteenth Amendment due

process claim as an Eighth Amendment claim. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S.

386, 395 (1989) (where a particular Amendment “provides an explicit textual

source of constitutional protection” against a particular sort of government

behavior, “that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due

process,’ must be the guide for analyzing these claims”). 

Perkins’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
Letter Agreement, dated October 18, 2010 regarding transfer of options



 Exhibit 10.22 
 18 October 2010 
 [Huff Trust] 

[Address] 
 Virgin Media
Inc. 
 909 Third Avenue, Suite 2863 

New York, New York 10022 
 Re:
Virgin Media Inc. (the “Company”) Non-Qualified Options 
 Dear Sir or Madam: 

William R. Huff has proposed to transfer to the undersigned non-qualified options to acquire Virgin Media Inc. common stock (“Shares”) as set
out on Exhibit A to this letter (the “Options”). The Options have been issued to Mr. Huff pursuant to Non-Qualified Option Notices dated as of [April 11, 2003, March 16, 2006, June 10, 2009 and June 15, 2009]
(the “Option Notices”. The Option Notices have been issued pursuant to the terms of the [2003 Virgin Media Inc. Stock Option Plan (fka as the NTL Incorporated 2003 Stock Option Plan), the Virgin Media Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (fka as
the Telewest Global, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan), and the Virgin Media Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan] (the “Plans”). The Option Notices have been amended by the action of the Company’s Compensation Committee taken on
18 October, 2010 (the “Amendment”). I have received and reviewed copies of the Plans, the Notices and the Amendment. 
 In
consideration of the Company’s agreement to permit Mr. Huff to transfer the Options to the undersigned, I agree to be bound by the terms of the Plan and the Option Notices, as amended by the Amendment. I agree that I will be subject to the
same restrictions, requirements and Company policies to which Mr. Huff would have been subject if he continued to hold the Options, including the requirements to make filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and pre-clear any sale of
the Shares. I also agree that, in the event that I should transfer the Options, I shall do so only in compliance with the Plan and Notices, as so amended, and subject to the precondition that the transferee shall entered into an agreement with the
Company on the same terms as this letter (but limited to those Options being so transferred). 







 My signature below evidences my binding agreement to the foregoing. Except as to matters of federal law,
this letter agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York without giving effect to conflicts of laws principles thereof. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	[HUFF TRUST]
		
	By:	 	  




 

			
	Accepted and Agreed:
	
	VIRGIN MEDIA INC.
		
	By:	 	  



  
 2
NUMBER 13

- 1 8

- 00 275

- C V



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS J. HENRY

, Appellant,

v.

PRISCILLA ANN GARCIA

, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Nueces County, Texas.



### ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

The District C lerk is ORDERED to forward Defendant’s Exhibit 3, admitted by the

trial court “under seal,” to the Clerk of this Court within three business days of the date of

this order.2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

4th day of January, 2019

.
**Exhibit 99.1**

** **

**Certificationof**

**ChiefExecutive Officer of**

**Gold BancCorporation, Inc.**

** **

I,Malcolm M. Aslin, Chief Executive Officer of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.,hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that:

 
| (a) |   | The Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on  Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended March 31, 2002, which accompanies  this certification, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                          |
|-----|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) |   | The information contained in the Amendment No. 1 to  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended March 31,  2002, which accompanies this certification, fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gold Banc  Corporation, Inc. |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. and will beretained by Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Dated:  May  15, 2003 |
|----------------------------|
|                       |
|                       |
|                       | /s/ Malcolm M. Aslin |   |
|                       | Malcolm M. Aslin |
|                       | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1207

DAGME ALEMAYEHU, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-227-648) Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: November 1, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dagme Alemayehu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board affirming in part the immigration judge’s order denying his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for asylum relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Alemayehu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Alemayehu’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Alemayehu fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions- 3 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20314]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2017-0285; FRL-9966-74-Region 10]

Washington: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the 
comment period for a proposed rulemaking to authorize a revision to the 
State of Washington's federally authorized hazardous waste management 
program pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 
as amended. The EPA has reviewed Washington's application, and we have 
determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to 
qualify for final authorization and are proposing to authorize the 
State's changes. EPA is reopening the public comment period until 
October 25, 2017.

DATES: This comment period is for the proposed rule published on July 
13, 2017 (82 FR 32305). All comments received on or before October 25, 
2017 will be entered into the public record and considered by the EPA 
before final action is taken on this proposed rule.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
RCRA-2017-0285, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any 
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA 
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, 
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara McCullough, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (206) 
553-2416, email: [email protected] or from the Washington 
State Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, Washington 
98503, contact: Robert Rieck, phone number: (360) 407-6751, email: 
[email protected].

    Dated: August 21, 2017.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017-20314 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE

#### Martha L. West v. Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley

December 20, 1984

Case No. (Law) 83-0347

By JUDGE ERNEST W. BALLOU

The issue to be decided at this point is whether plaintiff’s claim against Community Hospital has been discharged by virtue of § 8.01-35.1, Code of Virginia, as amended, under the facts and circumstances of this case.

The Procedural History and Hospital’s Motion to Dismiss as stated in Community Hospital’s memorandum accurately states the facts and legal posture of this case for the purpose of this decision and are adopted for this purpose.

The Court has considered the pleadings, memoranda of counsel and argument of counsel.

The Court is of opinion that the reduction required by § 8.01-35.1 is from the total recovery or total judgment recovered for *all*damages caused by joint tort feasors. The section is not intended to permit a joint tort feasor to settle for part of the total judgment recovered and have this discharge other joint feasors with statutory liability limitations unless the full judgment amount is recovered. Obviously, however, an injured party cannot recover or be paid from joint tort feasors in the aggregate more than the total recovered judgment.

The Court views the words "amount recovered" to be the judgment recovered, not the amount actually *259paid by each tort feasor, which must be reduced by any settlement.

Accordingly, the Court is of opinion that plaintiff’s claim against Community Hospital has not been discharged by the Gardner settlement.