alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony BELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-6274.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 14, 2007.

Decided: Jan. 9, 2008.

Anthony Bell, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 *464this 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. *See 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 Bell 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.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James Edward GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-41581

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2008.

Maureen E. Smith, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Reuss Snipes, State of Texas Criminal District Court Number 7, Dallas County, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent James Edward Griffin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Griffin has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
**Exhibit 24**

## ** **

## **POWER OF ATTORNEY**

## ** **

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of theundersigned directors and/or officers of TEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINECOMPANY, LLC (the “Company”), a Delaware limited liability company, acting inits capacity as general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P., and TE ProductsPipeline Company, Limited Partnership, each a Delaware limited partnership(collectively, “Partnership”), does hereby appoint WILLIAM G. MANIAS, his trueand lawful attorney and agent to do any and all acts and things, and executeany and all instruments which, with the advice and consent of Counsel, saidattorney and agent may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Company andPartnership to comply with the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules,regulations, and requirements thereof, to sign his name as a director and/orofficer of the Company to the Form 10-K Report for TEPPCO Partners, L.P.and for TE Products Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership, each for the yearended December 31, 2005, and to any instrument or document filed as a partof, or in accordance with, each said Form 10-K or amendment thereto; andthe undersigned do hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney and agentshall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents this 1stday of March, 2006.

 

 
| /s/ MICHAEL B.  BRACY     |   | /s/ MURRAY H.  HUTCHISON |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
| Michael B. Bracy          |   | Murray H.  Hutchison     |   |
| Director                  |   | Director                 |   |
|                      |   |                     |   |
| /s/ LEE W.  MARSHALL, SR. |   | /s/ RICHARD S.  SNELL    |   |
| Lee W. Marshall, Sr. |   | Richard S. Snell         |   |
| Director                  |   | Director                 |   |
|                      |   |                     |   |
| /s/ WILLIAM G.  MANIAS    |   | /s/ RICHARD H.  BACHMANN |   |
| William G.  Manias        |   | Richard H.  Bachmann     |   |
| Vice President  and       |   | Director                 |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer  |   |                     |   |
|                      |   |                     |   |
| /s/ MICHAEL A.  CREEL     |   | /s/ W. RANDALL FOWLER    |   |
| Michael A. Creel          |   | W. Randall  Fowler       |   |
| Director                  |   | Director                 |   |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jadrain Brandon SMALL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 08-6171.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 19, 2008.

Decided: June 24, 2008.

Jadrain Brandon Small, Appellant Pro Se. Eric John Klumb, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jadrain Brandon Small seeks to appeal the district court’s 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). 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 Small 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.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL FUSCELLARO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 242 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of December, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Axtive Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months
ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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/ Graham C. Beachum II                                          |  | Date: August 12, 2004
|Graham C. Beachum II                                              |  |                      
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer                 |  |                      
|                                                                  | 
|/s/ Stephen P. Slay                                               |  | Date: August 12, 2004
|Stephen P. Slay                                                   |  |                      
|Corporate Controller (principal financial and accounting officer) |  |
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH

#### Duncan v. Duncan

July 26, 1984

Case No. (Chancery) CH-1445

By JUDGE HENRY L. LAM

My approach to the issue of the validity of the contract, dated August 4, 1982, was to first inquire as to whether it was reasonable and fair. If found reasonable and fair, then the issue of duress raised by the husband becomes moot, or stated otherwise, how can one be heard to complain about a fair contract?

This contract should be judged and considered in the light in which most marital separation agreements are reached. Normally, they are entered into at a time when a marriage is disintegrating and emotions are strained, so generally separation agreements share a common ingredient of having been conceived under stress. Even conceding the normalcy of such stress, in this instance the terms and conditions are not only unusual, but appear punitive and shocking.

Paragraph numbered (9) provides that the husband will support the wife not only during a period of divorce, but is extended to include the time period of any subsequent remarriage of the wife. Though a person may so contract, certainly no obligation of support exists in law, or would be favored by the history of marriage practiced in this Commonwealth.

Although the issue of spousal support is the issue of primary concern to the husband, I draw your attention to an additional paragraph, numbered (12), which provides for the husband to thereafter pay the wife’s automobile *151insurance for so long as she lives and upon as many automobiles as she might own. Again, although legally permissible, such is highly unusual, it is not a provision normally found in separation agreements, and is so open-ended one cannot reasonably estimate the ultimate cost to the husband.

Also, a matter to be considered is the shortness of this marriage. I am not privileged to know from the evidence, but judging from the reasonable inferences arising therefrom, I conclude that these were mature adults entering into other than their first marriage. So, this marriage, lasting but shortly more than four years, amounts to little more than an experiment that failed. Ordinarily such brevity would not entitle a spouse to great consideration in matters of support.

My conclusion is that no person exercising a free will would have entered into this contract. The facts show that there were massive pressures acting against the husband. Concluding that the husband was not exercising a free will, I find that he signed under duress; and thus decide that said contract is null and void.
exv10w51






EXHIBIT 10.51




Arbitron Inc. 2011 Board of Director Compensation



The Arbitron Non-Employee Board of Directors receive the following compensation for 2011:




	 	 	 	 	 

	Annual Retainer Fee

	 	$	30,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Independent Chairman of the Board
Additional Annual Retainer

	 	$	85,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Committee Chair Retainer

	 	Audit Committee: $20,000

	 

	 	Compensation and Human Resources

	 

	 	Committee: $15,000

	 

	 	Nominating and Corporate Governance

	 

	 	Committee: $15,000

	 

	 	Technology Strategy Committee:

	 

	 	$	20,000	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Board Meeting Fees (In person or by 

telephone)

	 	$	1,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Committee Meeting Fees (In person)

	 	$	1,500	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Committee Meeting Fees (By telephone)

	 	$	750	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Initial Deferred Stock Unit Award

	 	Each newly elected non-employee
director will receive a
one-time grant of 4,500
deferred stock units, which
deferred stock units will vest
in three equal annual
installments of 1,500 deferred
stock units beginning on the
first anniversary from the date
of grant and will be payable no
sooner than six months
following the director’s
termination of service as a
director of the Company.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Deferred Stock Unit Awards

	 	Beginning the annual meeting
after initial election to the
board of directors, each
continuing non-employee
director will receive an annual
grant of $100,000 worth of
deferred stock units, which
deferred stock units will vest
in three equal annual
installments beginning on the
first anniversary from the date
of grant and will be payable no
sooner than six months
following the director’s
termination of service as a
director of the Company.






All cash retainer fees and meeting fees payable to non-employee directors may be paid, at the
election of each director, in the form of deferred stock units, in lieu of cash. The deferred stock
units vest immediately and are payable following the director’s termination of service as a
director of the Company.
```

[United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book), 1996]
[Independent Agencies and Government Corporations]
[Railroad Retirement Board]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

The Plum Book (United States Government Policy
        and Supporting Positions): 1996 EditionBRANCH: EXECUTIVE RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARDLocationPosition TitleName of IncumbentPay PlanType of Appt.Level Grade or PayTenureExpiresChicago, ILChairmanGlen L. BowerEXPASIII5-years08/28/1997Chicago, ILMember of the Board - ManagementJerome F. KeverEXPASIV5-years08/28/1998Chicago, ILMember of the Board - LaborVirgil M. Speakman, Jr.EXPASIV5-years08/28/1999Chicago, ILAssistant to the Board MemberJames C. BoehnerGSXS15..................Chicago, ILAttorney AdvisorRobert M. PerbohnerGSXS15..................Chicago, ILAssistant to the Chairman VacantGSXS15..................Chicago, ILInspector GeneralMartin J. DickmanEXPASIV..................
```
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

FEBRUARY 19, 2016 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD34089 

 Re: IN THE INTEREST OF: 

 A.R.T., Minor, 

 GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE 

 OFFICE, 

 Petitioner-Respondent, 

 vs. 

 D.R., 

 Respondent-Appellant.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Drug Repurposing for Alzheimer's Disease.                    

*Date:*                         October 17, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anita H. Undale, Ph.D., MD, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-747-7825,                         *anita.undale@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 18, 2017.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-20230 Filed 9-21-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2668 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2668

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 15, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the station of the United States Border Patrol located at 
  2136 South Naco Highway in Bisbee, Arizona, as the ``Brian A. Terry 
                        Border Patrol Station''.

    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 ``Brian A. Terry Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds the following:
            (1) A native of Flat Rock, Michigan, Agent Brian A. Terry 
        served his country proudly with the United States Marine Corps 
        and continued his service as a police officer with the cities 
        of Ecorse and Lincoln Park, Michigan, prior to joining the 
        United States Border Patrol.
            (2) Agent Terry was a member of the 699th Session of the 
        Border Patrol Academy assigned to the Naco Border Patrol 
        Station within the Tucson Sector.
            (3) On December 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian A. 
        Terry was conducting a Border Patrol Tactical unit (BORTAC) 
        operation in the area of ``Peck Wells''.
            (4) At 11:15 p.m., near Rio Rico, Arizona, and about 15 
        miles north of Nogales, Arizona, Agent Terry and his team 
        spotted a group of individuals approaching their position.
            (5) Shortly thereafter, an encounter ensued and gunfire was 
        exchanged that left Agent Terry mortally wounded.
            (6) Agent Terry succumbed to his injuries on December 15, 
        2010.
            (7) Agent Terry is survived by his mother, father, 
        stepmother, stepfather, brother, and two sisters.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION.

    The station of the United States Border Patrol located at 2136 
South Naco Highway in Bisbee, Arizona, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Brian A. Terry Border Patrol Station''.

SEC. 4. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the station referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Brian A. Terry Border Patrol 
Station''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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
    
    the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of the Company on
    Form 10-K
    for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with
    the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
    the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of
    operation of the Company.
**Exhibit 24****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned directors and/or officers ofTEXAS EASTERN PRODUCTS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC (the “Company”), a Delaware limited liability company,acting in its capacity as general partner of TEPPCO Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership(the “Partnership”), does hereby appoint WILLIAM G. MANIAS, his true and lawful attorney and agentto do any and all acts and things, and execute any and all instruments which, with the advice andconsent of Counsel, said attorney and agent may deem necessary or advisable to enable the Companyand Partnership to comply with the Securities Act of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations,and requirements thereof, to sign his name as a director and/or officer of the Company to the Form10-K Report for the Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2007, and to any instrument ordocument filed as a part of, or in accordance with, said Form 10-K or amendment thereto; and theundersigned do hereby ratify and confirm all that said attorney and agent shall do or cause to bedone by virtue hereof.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have subscribed these presents this 28th day ofFebruary, 2008.   /s/ MICHAEL B. BRACY /s/ MURRAY H. HUTCHISON   Michael B. Bracy Murray H. HutchisonDirector Director   /s/ RICHARD S. SNELL /s/ JERRY E. THOMPSON   Richard S. Snell Jerry E. ThompsonDirector Director   /s/ DONALD H. DAIGLE /s/ WILLIAM G. MANIAS   Donald H. Daigle William G. ManiasDirector Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer