alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"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 and Surrenders – June 9, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7pX5BjrXc5\"><a href=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-june-9-2015\/\">Revocations and Surrenders – June 9, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/revocations-and-surrenders-june-9-2015\/embed\/#?secret=7pX5BjrXc5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Revocations and Surrenders – June 9, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"7pX5BjrXc5\" 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"}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0302

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BRANDON JAMES LEWIS TOLLIE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 13, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 7 2021

07/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0302
{"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":"Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Before the Surface Transportation Board Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ih4BivDvoR\"><a href=\"\/statement-of-dye-stb-demurrage\/\">Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Before the Surface Transportation Board Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-of-dye-stb-demurrage\/embed\/#?secret=ih4BivDvoR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Dye Before the Surface Transportation Board Oversight Hearing on Demurrage and Accessorial Charges” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"ih4BivDvoR\" 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"}
#### Elie Joseph NAJJAR, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-72995.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*725Submitted Oct. 23, 2015.*

Filed Jan. 13, 2016.

Alan Michael Anzarouth San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, Imran Raza Zaidi, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: KLEINFELD, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Elie Joseph Najjar (Najjar), a native and citizen of Lebanon, and former resettled resident of Sweden, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal. Although Najjar has never disputed his firm resettlement in Sweden, he contends that his due process rights were violated when an Immigration Judge (IJ) changed the designated country of removal from Lebanon or Sweden .to Sweden only.

“Immigration proceedings must provide the procedural due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment____” *Vilchez v. Holder,*682 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.2012) (citation omitted). In the context of country of removal designations, last minute orders of removal to a country may violate due process if an immigrant was not provided an opportunity to address his fear of persecution in that country. *See Andriasian v. I.N.S.,*180 F.3d 1033, 1041 (9th Cir.1999).

Najjar’s removal proceedings fully comported with due process requirements. The IJ consistently stated that Najjar faced removal to Sweden. Indeed, the IJ first designated Sweden as a country of removal in November, 2008 — over sixteen months before Najjar’s removal hearing. Additionally, the IJ provided Najjar an opportunity to present evidence in support of his asylum application once Lebanon was no longer designated as a country of removal. It is of no constitutional significance that Lebanon was eliminated as a country of removal on the date of the removal hearing, as Najjar was assured that if Sweden did not accept Najjar and the government opted to pursue Lebanon as the country of removal, Najjar would be provided an opportunity to seek withholding of removal from Lebanon. *See Su Hwa She v. Holder,*629 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir.2010) (approving a similar approach).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel Ramirez MACIAS, also known as Manuel Macias-Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40253

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defende, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendanb-Appellant.

*909Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Ramirez Macias 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). Macias has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no non-frivolous 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.
#### Scott Anthony BURAS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEI SEALING SYSTEMS LLC; Tetralene Inc.; Tetralene Elastomer Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-31070

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 15, 2008.

*373Douglas Daniel Brown, Hammond, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Richard Edward McCormack, Irwin, Fritchie, Urquhart & Moore, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Scott Anthony Buras appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district court. That judgment dismissed the action filed by Buras alleging employment discrimination; specifically, constructive discharge resulting from alleged male-on-male sexual “horseplay” by fellow employees and supervisors of Buras. The district court’s summary judgment dismissed Buras’s complaint for failure to make out a *prima facie*case of employment discrimination, granting the motion because of the total absence of probative evidence: Nothing was before the court except (1) the unsworn conclusional and self-serving statement of Buras, (2) a short, hearsay statement from his brother (also unsworn), and (3) the deposition of one Otis Earlycutt, formerly an employee of the defendants and supervisor of Buras, which deposition was totally devoid of evidence supporting allegations of the Buras complaint.

The sole basis of the appeal is the purported post-judgment “errata” statement by Earlycutt, which Buras claims sheds a different light on the matter. Our careful examination of the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties refutes that contention and satisfies us that the district court correctly granted summary judgment dismissing Buras’s action; moreover, that even if the errata attributed to Earlycutt had been before the district court, the result would have been the same and the summary judgment would stand.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-190614, 333-196840 and 333-205642 on Form S-8 and No. 333-198598 on Form S-3 of Intrexon Corporation of our report dated February 24,
2016, relating to our audits of the financial statements of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc. which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Intrexon Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2015.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/ RSM US LLP       
|                     
|Boston, Massachusetts
|March 11, 2016
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                             SEC.906 CERTIFICATION

I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2002 of Pactiv Corporation:

(1) fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a) or sec.15(d) of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
    Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.

   /s/ RICHARD L. WAMBOLD
--------------------------------
Richard L. Wambold
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer

          August 5, 2002
--------------------------------
Date
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2958 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify the definition of commercial 

motor vehicle, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2021 

Mr. DELGADO (for himself, Mr. TONKO, and Ms. STEFANIK) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify the definition of commercial motor vehicle, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘End the Limo Loop5 hole Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE REQUIREMENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31301(4)(B) of title 49, 

8 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘to transport 

9 at least 16 passengers including the driver’’ and inserting 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2958 IH

1 ‘‘or used to transport 9 or more passengers, including the 

2 driver’’. 

3 (b) COMPLETION OF RULEMAKING.—Not later than 

4 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec5 retary shall complete the rulemaking process and issue a 

6 final rule with respect to the withdrawn rulemaking enti7 tled ‘‘State Inspection Programs for Passenger-Carrier 

8 Vehicles’’, published in the Federal Register on April 27, 

9 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 24769). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2277

In Re: WAYNE HAROLD WILLIAMSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 13, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Harold Williamson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Wayne Harold Williamson filed this petition for a writ of

mandamus requesting this court to intervene in state court proceedings. Because we have no general power to compel action by state

officials, we deny the petition. See Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72,

74 (2d Cir. 1988). We further deny Williamson's motion entitled

"Praecipe to the Clerk" and deny as moot his "Motion to the Court

for Immediate Judicial Review." 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.

PETITION DENIED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 20, 2019

b0917 

# Order

Clerk September 20, 2019

159338 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159338

COA: 346557

Emmet CC: 17

- 004525

- FH;

MAX HENRY OOM, 17

- 004621

- FH

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to amend claims i s GRANTED. T he appli cation

for leave to appeal the January 25, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is considered

. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H )(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case

to the Court of Appeals for consider ation, as on leave granted, of whether the Emmet

Circuit Court erred by assigning 10 points to Offense Variable (OV) 14. In all other

respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are n ot persuaded that the remaining

question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
{"id":44,"date":"2018-03-14T14:40:19","date_gmt":"2018-03-14T18:40:19","guid":{"rendered":"\/about-the-fmc\/organizational-chart\/"},"modified":"2022-08-03T09:23:52","modified_gmt":"2022-08-03T13:23:52","slug":"organizational-chart","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"\/about-the-fmc\/organizational-chart\/","title":{"rendered":"Organizational Chart"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1>Organizational Chart<\/h1>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-6974 size-full\" src=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/OrgChartAug2022.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"948\" height=\"801\" srcset=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/OrgChartAug2022.png 948w, \/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/OrgChartAug2022-300x253.png 300w, \/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/OrgChartAug2022-768x649.png 768w, \/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/OrgChartAug2022-150x127.png 150w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 948px) 100vw, 948px\" \/><\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Organizational Chart    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"parent":8,"menu_order":19,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/44"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/44\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6980,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/44\/revisions\/6980"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
No. 866.

#### Illinois Central Railroad Company, Petitioner, *v.*Mary O’Neill et al.

April 18, 1910.

*Mr. Hunter C. Leake, Mr. Gustave Lemle,*and *Mr. Blewett Lee*for the petitioner.

No appearance for the respondents.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
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 Baynon International Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Pasquale Catizone, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
            (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.

/s/Pasquale Catizone
-----------------------------
Pasquale Catizone
Chief Executive Officer

December 15, 2009


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 amended Quarterly Report of Baynon International
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the six months ended June 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel Generelli, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
            (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.

/s/Daniel Generelli
-----------------------------
Daniel Generelli
Chief Financial Officer

December 15, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7683

SPENCER UTSEY, a/k/a Spencer Clay Utsey,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

 Respondent - Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

 Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (8:19-cv-03218-JMC)

Submitted: March 15, 2021 Decided: April 23, 2021

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Spencer Utsey, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Spencer Utsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Utsey that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Utsey received proper notice 

and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

review of the claims pursued on appeal because his objections did not address the same 

claims. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a 

magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that 

issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground 

for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

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