alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell LAW, a/k/a B, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-6987.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 1, 2010.

Darrell Law, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darrell Law seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a sub*792stantial 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 Law has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Law’s motion for 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.*
##### 

Table of Contents


EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Embraer-Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A., (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Maurício Novis Botelho, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                          
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                     
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 30, 2006

|    |                            |                                                 
|--- | -------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------
|By: | /S/ MAURICIO NOVIS BOTELHO
|    |                            |                                                 
|    | Name:                      | Mauricio Novis Botelho                          
|    | Title:                     | Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer

---
**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 of SmartVideo Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
E. Bennett, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (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 result of operations of the Company.
 ****DateMay
      23, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Richard E. Bennett,
  Jr.Richard
      E. Bennett, Jr.
      Chief
      Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. German MILLON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-5039.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 23, 2008.

Decided: May 2, 2008.

Tolly A. Kennon, III, Kennon *&*Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

German Millón appeals his conviction and seventy-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). On appeal, Mil-Ion states only a single claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government has moved to dismiss Millon’s appeal based upon a waiver of appellate rights in his plea agreement.

We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed Millon’s claim and conclude that it does not “conclusively appear! ]” on the record that counsel was ineffective. *United States v. Richardson,*195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Millón may raise his ineffective assistance claim in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We therefore affirm Millon’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *269the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2880 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2880

  To require the Commandant of the Coast Guard to modify regulations 
relating to vessel response plans to include notifications with respect 
                     to search and rescue missions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2021

   Mr. Higgins of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Commandant of the Coast Guard to modify regulations 
relating to vessel response plans to include notifications with respect 
                     to search and rescue missions.

    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 ``Vessel Response Plan Improvement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SEARCH AND RESCUE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR VESSEL RESPONSE 
              PLANS OF COAST GUARD-APPROVED COMMERCIAL VESSELS.

    (a) In General.--The Commandant of the Coast Guard shall modify 
subparts I and J of part 155 of title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, 
to require the vessel response plans of Coast Guard-approved tank and 
nontank commercial vessels to include the procedures described in 
subsection (b) for use by the Coast Guard in the case of a search and 
rescue mission.
    (b) Procedures.--The procedures described in this subsection are as 
follows:
            (1) A procedure for providing, not less frequently than 
        twice daily for the duration of a search and rescue mission, 
        notifications to family members of the crew of the vessel with 
        respect to the status of the search and rescue mission, any 
        injured crew member, and salvage.
            (2) A procedure for the immediate notification of the next 
        of kin or family members in the case of--
                    (A) a deceased crew member; or
                    (B) the recovery of a survivor or the body of a 
                crew member during such a search and rescue mission.
                                 <all>
```
Document

Exhibit 10.2


Skyworks Solutions, Inc.

Cash Compensation Plan for Directors


Directors who are not employees of Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), are paid an annual retainer of $80,000. Additional annual retainers are paid to any non-employee Chairman of the Board ($130,000); the Lead Independent Director, if one has been appointed ($50,000); the Chairman of the Audit Committee ($30,000); the Chairman of the Compensation Committee ($20,000); and the Chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee ($15,000). Additional annual retainers are also paid to directors who serve on committees in roles other than as Chairman as follows: Audit Committee ($15,000); Compensation Committee ($10,000); and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee ($7,500). All retainers are paid in quarterly installments. In addition, the Compensation Committee retains discretion to recommend to the full Board of Directors that additional cash payments be made to a non-employee director(s) for extraordinary service during a fiscal year.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quaishic Lamont CAPERS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7450.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 26, 2013.

Quaishic Lamont Capers, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Módica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

*222Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Quaishic Lamont Capers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Capers 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.*
|   | (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 as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |                                  |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                  |   |
|   |   | /s/ William J. Wagner            |   |
|   |   | William J. Wagner                     |   |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |

|   |   |                                   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                   |   |
|   |   | /s/ Guida R. Sajdak               |   |
|   |   | Guida R. Sajdak                        |   |
|   |   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial |   |
|   |   | Officer and Treasurer                  |   |
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 76, 015
EX PA R TE LA R R Y A LA N N EV I L , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 0 9 4 8 4 4 6 D I N T HE 3 7 1 DI S TR I CT COURT st FROM TARRA NT CO UNTY
P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty and wa s convicted of assault-fa

mily violence, e nhance d by a prior f amily violence c onviction, and sente nced to three y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th at his c onvic tio n v iol a te s p ro hib iti on s a g a ins t ex post facto laws . The State ag ree s. Th e tr ia l c ourt

a g re e s in its fi nd in gs of

fa c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw f

ile d p ur su ant t o th is2

a pp lic atio n, that the c onvic tio n v iol ate s p ro hib iti on s a g a ins t ex post facto laws. Applica nt is entitl ed to relief. Sc ott

v . S tate , 55 S.W .3d 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 0948446D in the 371 J udicial District Court st of Ta rr ant C ounty

is s e t a sid e , a

nd Ap pli c ant i s r e mand e d to the c us tod y of the s he ri ff

of Ta rr ant County to a ns we r t he c ha rg e s a s se t out in

the ind ic tme nt. Copies of this opinion s h al l b e s en tt o th e T ex as De p art m en to f C ri m i n al J u s t i ce
– C o rr ec t ional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Octobe r 8, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
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.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Theresa Kingsberry, Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-24589 Filed 11-13-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24643]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Government In The Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, November 15, 2017, 1:00 p.m. ET.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave. SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (Board) will be meeting at 
the time and location listed above. The Board will vote on a consent 
agenda consisting of the minutes of its August 30, 2017 meeting, a 
resolution honoring 35th Anniversary of Voice of America Broadcasts in 
Amharic-Language, and a resolution proposing 2018 BBG Board schedule. 
The Board will receive a report from the Chief Executive Officer and 
Director of BBG.
    This meeting will be available for public observation via streamed 
webcast, both live and on-demand, on the agency's public Web site at 
www.bbg.gov. Information regarding this meeting, including any updates 
or adjustments to its starting time, can also be found on the agency's 
public Web site.
    The public may also attend this meeting in person at the address 
listed above as seating capacity permits. Members of the public seeking 
to attend the meeting in person must register at https://bbgboardmeetingnovember2017.eventbrite.com by 12:00 p.m. (ET) on 
November 14. For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at 
(202) 203-4400 or by email at [email protected].

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Oanh Tran at (202) 203-4545.

Oanh Tran,
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2017-24643 Filed 11-8-17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark McGarrett LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6798.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.

Decided: Nov. 25, 2013.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Alfred W. Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark McGarrett Lewis appeals from the 74-month sentence imposed upon resentencing under the Fair Sentencing Act. He contends that the sentence is unreasonable because the district court denied his request for a variance based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation without addressing how Lewis’s rehabilitation efforts impacted the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). We affirm.

We have reviewed Lewis’s sentence and conclude that the sentence imposed was reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Llamas,*599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Lewis. The court properly calculated and considered the applicable Guidelines range, and appropriately treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory. We conclude that the district court appropriately considered and rejected Lewis’s request for a variant sentence in light of the § 3553(a) factors and Lewis’s individual characteristics and history, sufficiently explained the reasons for the sentence, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 41, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Allen,*491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir.2007) (applying appellate presumption of reasonableness to within-Guidelines sentence).

Accordingly, we affirm Lewis’s 74-month sentence. We deny Lewis’s motion for a transcript at government expense and his motion for leave to file a supple*204mental brief. 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.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Revocations – May 18, 2018","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"sI49NlKbTo\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-may-18-2018\/\">Revocations – May 18, 2018<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-may-18-2018\/embed\/#?secret=sI49NlKbTo\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations – May 18, 2018” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"sI49NlKbTo\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}