alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 29, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10224

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES RAY RYAN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(1:05-CV-15)

(1:04-CR-22)

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant James Ray Ryan, federal prisoner #

32861-177, moves this court for a certificate of appealability

(COA) following the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. In his motion, Ryan challenged the validity of his guilty

plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g). Ryan also asserted that his counsel was

ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal, although he

specifically requested that counsel do so.
2

A COA may issue only if Ryan makes “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “The COA

determination under § 2253(c) requires an overview of the claims in

the habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits.”

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). “A petitioner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason

could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues

presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Id. at 327.

With respect to his challenge to the validity of his guilty

plea, Ryan has failed to meet the standard required for the

issuance of a COA. Accordingly, Ryan’s motion for a COA is DENIED

as to this issue. Ryan has, however, made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right with respect to his claim that

counsel was ineffective in failing to file a notice of appeal on

his behalf. See Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 477, 483

(2000). Because he alleges that he specifically requested that

counsel file a notice of appeal, Ryan was not required to

demonstrate that he would have presented merit worthy issues on

appeal. See id. at 485. Further, Ryan’s § 2255 motion was made

under penalty of perjury and was competent evidence supporting his

claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1746; see Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 764

n.1 (5th Cir. 2003). Because Ryan’s § 2255 motion and the files
3

and records of this case do not conclusively show that he is

entitled to no relief, an evidentiary hearing was required. See

United States v. Hughes, 635 F.2d 449, 451 (5th Cir. 1981).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Ryan’s motion for a COA is GRANTED

solely on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel issue. The

judgment is VACATED and the case REMANDED for further development

in the district court.
-  Home 
-  International 

# In This Section

                      -  International Programs 
                      -  NAFTA Rules 
                      -  Mexico Cross-Border Trucking Pilot Program 
                      -  Guidance for International Carriers 
                      -  Online Resources for International Carriers 
                      -  Spanish Motor Carrier Safety Planner                          -  Planificador de Seguridad para Autotransportistas 
                        -  Biblioteca de Formularios 
                        -  Sitio de Web Relacionados 
                        -  Glosario y Siglas 
                      -  Frequently Asked Questions                          -  Mexico Motor Carriers 
                        -  CDL & non-CDL 
                        -  Hours of Service 
                        -  Vehicle Maintenance 
                        -  Medical Qualifications 
                        -  ELDs for U.S. Carriers in Canada 

## International Programs

1200 New Jersey Avenue SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Vehicle Maintenance Requirements

The following frequently asked questions (FAQs) were developed to highlight vehicle maintenance requirements for foreign motor carriers operating in cross-border transportation in the United States.  The FMCSA has published a significant number of vehicle maintenance related FAQs for all motor carriers operating a commercial motor vehicle in the United States, therefore please refer to the FMCSA website for additional vehicle maintenance related FAQs. 

 

**PERIODIC VEHICLE INSPECTION**

 

**Q1:  Do****vehicles inspected under a periodic Canadian or Mexican inspection program comply with the FMCSA periodic inspection standards?**

 

**A1:**  Yes.  The FMCSA has determined that the periodic inspection programs required by all of the Canadian Provinces and Mexico's Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) defined in the Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM, or Official Mexican Standard) NOM-068-SCT-2-2014 are comparable to, or as effective as, the periodic inspection requirements contained in the FMCSRs - Appendix G.

 

**DRIVER VEHICLE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS**

 

**Q1:  How does the****Final Rule published on December 18, 2014, by the FMCSA that rescinded the requirement that commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers operating in the United States in interstate commerce, except drivers of passenger-carrying CMVs, submit, and motor carriers retain, the driver vehicle inspection reports (DVIR) when the driver has neither found nor been made aware of any vehicle defects or deficiencies (no-defect DVIR) impact U.S drivers operating in Canada?**

 

**A1:**** **This change only applies to operations in the United States only.  To continue to comply with Canadian National and Provincial regulations, U.S.-based motor carriers need to complete and retain DVIRs when operating in Canada regardless of whether or not defects are noted.
DARNELL WEBSTER, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL BY 

No. 85472 

FILE 

OCT Z4 2021 

H A. BF:OWN 

UPREME COURT 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

Wu 19-17A 

DEP CLERK 

This is a pro se notice of appeal from a district court order 

denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth 

Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge. 

This court's review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. 

Specifically, the district court entered its order denying appellant's petition 

on June 27, 2022. The district court served notice of entry of that order on 

appellant on June 29, 2022. Appellant did not file the notice of appeal, 

however, until October 4, 2022, well after the expiration of the 30-day 

appeal period prescribed by NRS 34.575. See NRAP 4(b); Lozada v. State, 

110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994) (explaining that an untimely 

notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court). Accordingly, this 

court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.' 

abog, , J. 

Cadish 

, J. Sr.J. 

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in this 

matter under a general order of assignment. 

- '3371 
cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge 

Darnell Webster 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

I947A •,4gAt4
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

                                     between

                       Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
                                       and
                    MD-Individual Practice Association, Inc.

                                       and


                                GEORGE T. JOCHUM



This agreement shall be the First Amendment to the Employment  Agreement between
Mid Atlantic Medical Services,  Inc.,  MD-Individual Practice Association,  Inc.
and George T.  Jochum  which was signed and  delivered  the 18th day of December
1990.

(1)         The  parties  reaffirm  and  ratify  the  Original  Contract  in all
            respects except as provided below.


(2)       Add to Section 3.9 [Retirement Benefits]

            "Payment,  if any, of the augmented  retirement benefit will be made
            in the form of an annuity  for a fixed term of years  payable to the
            Executive,  or his estate,  heirs, or assignees as determined by the
            Executive.  Such  term  of the  annuity  shall  be  the  actuarially
            equivalent  of a fixed and  certain  term as compared to the average
            life  expectancy  for an  individual  of the age and  status  of the
            Executive at the date of retirement or death"


(3)       Change to Section 1.1 [Term of Employment] by

                      deleting "ending December 31, 1994", and
                      inserting "ending December 31, 1998"


(4)        Add to Section 3.1 (Base Compensation) at end of first paragraph.

                    "Notwithstanding the above, in no event will Executive's
                     Compensation be reduced by more than 25% in any one year"




<PAGE>


(5)        Change to Section 3.1 (Base Compensation) by

                       deleting "March" and inserting "January"


(6)        Add new section 3.10

          "Health Insurance. Either the Executive or the spouse of the Executive
     at the time of retirement  or death of the  Executive  will be eligible for
     health coverage from the Company or its successor  during the term of their
     respective  lives.  Such health coverage to be paid for by Executive or the
     spouse of the Executive."


Signed and delivered this 11th day of September, 1992, in Rockville, Maryland by
Mid Atlantic Medical Services,  Inc.,  MD-Individual Practice Association,  Inc.
and George T. Jochum.




/s/
George T. Jochum


Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.    MD-Individual Practice Association, Inc.



By: /s/ Joseph L. Guarriello           By: /s/ Joseph L. Guarriello
    ------------------------               ------------------------
       Joseph L. Guarriello                    Joseph L. Guarriello
       Executive Vice President                Executive Vice President
       and General Counsel                     and General Counsel
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40383

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO BEST, also known as Armando Donato Best

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-231-ALL

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Armando Best has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Best has not filed a response. Our independent

review ofthe 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 at and for
the periods indicated.
  /s/  Cameron R. NelsonCameron R. NelsonVice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1839 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1839

  To extend until January 1, 1995, the existing suspension of duty on 
power-driven weaving machines for weaving fabrics more than 4.9 meters 
                               in width.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 22, 1993

   Mr. Roth introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend until January 1, 1995, the existing suspension of duty on 
power-driven weaving machines for weaving fabrics more than 4.9 meters 
                               in width.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXISTING SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON POWER-DRIVEN 
              WEAVING MACHINES FOR WEAVING FABRICS MORE THAN 4.9 
              METERS.

    Heading 9902.84.46 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United 
States is amended by striking ``12/31/92'' and inserting ``12/31/94''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    (a) In General.--The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect 
on the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Retroactive Provision.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon 
a request filed with the appropriate customs officer before the 180th 
day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or 
withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of goods to which the 
amendment made by section 1 applies and that was made--
            (1) after December 31, 1990; and
            (2) before the 15th day after the date of the enactment of 
        this Act;
and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a lower duty 
if the amendment made by section 1 had applied to such entry or 
withdrawal, shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such entry or 
withdrawal had occurred on such 15th day.

                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shannonjon BENTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-10480.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2010.

Filed Jan. 3, 2011.

Jared C. Dolan, Office of the U.S. Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael Petrik, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

A search of defendant Shannonjon Benton’s (“Benton”) purse resulted in her conviction under 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(b)(39) for possession of a knife exceeding three inches on Veteran Administration (“VA”) property, which she now appeals. The magistrate judge determined that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest Benton for drug possession, a determination that has not been appealed by the government. The magistrate nevertheless upheld the search on the theory that the officers could have arrested Benton for bringing a dog onto VA property, in violation of 38 C.F.R. § 1.218(a)(11). Because Benton was not under arrest for the dog offense, and nothing in the record supports a reasonable suspicion that Benton was armed or dangerous, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an order granting Benton’s motion to suppress.

The district court upheld the search as *per se*reasonable under the exception to the warrant requirement permitting officers to conduct a contemporaneous “full field search” incident to a lawful custodial arrest. *See United States v. Robinson,*414 U.S. 218, 224, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973); *Chimel v. California,*
      *219395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). However, as a threshold issue, we must “determine ... whether appellant[ ][was] subjected to treatment that rendered [her] in custody *at the time of the search.” United States v. Mota,*982 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis added). At the time of the search, the officers had already declined to arrest Benton for the dog offense and she had been allowed to walk into the hospital by herself to retrieve her prescription. “It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search.” *Id.*(quoting *Robinson,*414 U.S. at 235, 94 S.Ct. 467). Here, there was no arrest for the dog offense at the time of the search and thus there could be no search incident to arrest.

REVERSED and REMANDED for entry of an order granting the motion to suppress.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       1,717,543
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,624,827
<ALLOWANCES>                                   200,000
<INVENTORY>                                    769,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,191,444
<PP&E>                                       7,458,571
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,898,257
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,285,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,838,529
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       114,077
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,777,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,285,523
<SALES>                                      1,959,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,787,462
<CGS>                                        1,705,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,337,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,349,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,077,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,678,236
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,399,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
## 

Exhibit 21Listing of Subsidiaries of MCT

|Subsidiary                                     |  | State/Country of Incorporation |  | Owner                                   
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|MCT International, Inc.                        |  | Minnesota                      |  | 100% MCT                                
|MCT Asia Pte. Ltd.                             |  | Singapore                      |  | 100% MCT International                  
|MCT Asia (Penang) Sdn. Bhd.                    |  | Malaysia                       |  | 100% MCT International                  
|MCT (HK) Limited                               |  | Hong Kong                      |  | 100% MCT International                  
|Aseco Corporation                              |  | Deleware                       |  | 100% MCT                                
|Aseco Investment Corporation                   |  | Massachusetts                  |  | 100% Aseco                              
|Aseco International Sales Corporation          |  | Barbados                       |  | 100% Aseco                              
|Aseco International, Inc.                      |  | Delaware                       |  | 100% Aseco                              
|Aseco (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.                     |  | Malaysia                       |  | 100% Aseco                              
|Western Equipment Developments (Holdings) Ltd. |  | England                        |  | 100% Aseco                              
|Western Equipment Developments Ltd.            |  | England                        |  | 100% Western Equipment Developments Ltd.
|Aseco (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.                    |  | Singapore                      |  | 100% Aseco International                
|Aseco Branch, Inc.                             |  | Delaware                       |  | 100% Aseco International                

---

## QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1181

EDWARD B. CHRISTIAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ED WRIGHT, Warden of L.V.C.C.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:13-cv-01396-GBL-TRJ)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 2, 2014

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward B. Christian, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward B. Christian seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Christian has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED