alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3083

MICHELE KELLER,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

Martin S. Hume , Martin S. Hume Co., L.P.A., of Youngstown, Ohio, argued for

petitioner.

Sara B. Rearden , Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems

Protection Board, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the brief

were B. Chad Bungard , General Counsel and Keisha Dawn Bell , Deputy General

Counsel.

Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3083

MICHELE KELLER,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the Merit Systems Protection Board

in CASE NO(S). CH3443080506-I-1

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED Nobember 13, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Marshall
        Holdings International, Inc. for the third quarter ending September 30, 2007,
        I,
        Richard A. Bailey, Chief Executive Officer of Marshall Holdings International,
        Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
        and
        belief, that:
  1.           Such
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the third quarter ending September 30,
        2007,
        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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the third
        quarter ending September 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of Marshall Holdings
        International, Inc.
  Dated:
        November 19, 2007.
  /s/  Richard
                  A. BaileyRichard
                  A. Bailey, Chief Executive Officer ofMarshall
                  Holdings International, Inc.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 649 

To require the Secretary of Energy to obtain the consent of affected State 

and local governments before making an expenditure from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund for a nuclear waste repository, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2019 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Ms. ROSEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to obtain the consent 

of affected State and local governments before making 

an expenditure from the Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste repository, 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 ‘‘Nuclear Waste In5 formed Consent Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act, the terms ‘‘affected Indian tribe’’, ‘‘af8 fected unit of local government’’, ‘‘high-level radioactive 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 649 IS

1 waste’’, ‘‘repository’’, ‘‘Secretary’’, ‘‘spent nuclear fuel’’, 

2 and ‘‘unit of general local government’’ have the meanings 

3 given the terms in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy 

4 Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101). 

5 SEC. 3. CONSENT BASED APPROVAL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not make an 

7 expenditure from the Nuclear Waste Fund established 

8 under section 302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

9 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(c)) for the costs of the activities 

10 described in paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 302(d) of 

11 that Act (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)) unless the Secretary has 

12 entered into an agreement for a repository with— 

13 (1) the Governor of the State in which the re14 pository is proposed to be located; 

15 (2) each affected unit of local government; 

16 (3) any unit of general local government contig17 uous to the affected unit of local government if 

18 spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will 

19 be transported through that unit of general local 

20 government for disposal at the repository; and 

21 (4) each affected Indian tribe. 

22 (b) CONDITIONS ON AGREEMENT.—Any agreement 

23 for a repository under this Act— 

24 (1) shall be in writing and signed by all parties; 

25 (2) shall be binding on the parties; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 649 IS

1 (3) shall not be amended or revoked except by 

2 mutual agreement of the parties. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00072-CR

COLLIS BURNETT ROBINSON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 43rd District Court

of Parker County (CR16-0735)

June 6, 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment 

of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J. R. MCFARLANE, M.C. HOLIFIELD, K.J. BRUBAKER

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JOSEPH E. FISHER

FIRE CONTROL TECHNICIAN SEAMAN (E

- 3), U.S. N AVY

NMCCA 201400426

GENERAL COURT

- MARTIAL

**Sentence Adjudged:** 20 August 2014

. **Military Judge:** CDR Marcus Fulton, JAGC, USN

. **Convening Authority:** Commander, Navy Region Hawaii, Pearl

Harbor, HI.

**Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation:** LCDR J.S. Ayeroff

,

JAGC, USN

. **For Appellant:** CDR Suzanne M. Lachelier, JAGC, USN.

**For Appellee:** Mr. Brian K. Keller , Esq

.

**2 6**  **February 2015**

**---------------------------------------------------**

**OPINION OF THE COURT**

**---------------------------------------------------**

After careful consideration of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
# C_2010234EN.01004702.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/47

---

Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (STOMACONTROL)

(Case T-282/10)

()

2010/C 234/84

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2010 in case R 1434/2009-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2010 in case R 1434/2009-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STOMACONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2007042EN.01000201.xml

| 24.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-251/04) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 1 and 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 - Transport - Freedom to provide services - Maritime cabotage - Towage services on open sea)

(2007/C 42/02)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and K. Simonsson, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni and S. Chala, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) — National legislation granting only vessels flying the Greek flag the right to provide towage services on open sea.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.

1

---
# C_2010234EN.01004501.xml

| 28.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/45

---

Action brought on 22 June 2010 — El Coto De Rioja v OHIM — Álvarez Serrano (COTO DE GOMARIZ)

(Case T-276/10)

()

2010/C 234/80

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: El Coto De Rioja, S.A. (Oyón, Alava) (Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: María Álvarez Serrano (Gomariz Leiro, Orense) (Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 28 April 2010 in Case R 1020/2008-4 and, consequently, declare invalid Community trade mark No 2 631 828, in Class 33, which contains the verbal element ‘COTO DE GOMARIZ’, and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 28 April 2010 in Case R 1020/2008-4 and, consequently, declare invalid Community trade mark No 2 631 828, in Class 33, which contains the verbal element ‘COTO DE GOMARIZ’, and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative trade mark containing the verbal element ‘COTO DE GOMARIZ’ (Application No 2 631 828) for goods in Class 33 ‘wines’.

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: María Álvarez Serrano

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: EL COTO DE RIOJA S.A.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Trade mark right or sign of the applicant for the declaration: Community word mark ‘COTO DE IMAZ’ (No 339 333) for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33; Community word mark ‘EL COTO’ (No 339 408) for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33; and the well-known Spanish marks ‘EL COTO’ and ‘COTO DE IMAZ’ for ‘wines’.

Trade mark right or sign of the applicant for the declaration:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Annulment of the contested Community trade mark.

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, in conjunction with Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of that regulation.

Pleas in law:

---
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

Rural Development

Business Center

Operations Office

1400 Independence Ave 

SW, RM 6858-S 

Mail Stop 3203

Washington, DC 20250

Voice 202.720.4581

RD AN No. 4895 (2036-A) 

To: All Rural Development Employees

From: James Brent, Jr. 

Deputy Chief Operating Officer 

Acting Chief Enterprise Officer 

Subject: Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Supporting Documentation 

requirements for Temporary Duty Travel Reimbursement Claims 

PURPOSE/INTENDED OUTCOME:

This Administrative Notice (AN) provides guidance on supporting documentation 

requirements when claiming privately owned vehicle (POV) mileage 

reimbursement for usage during Temporary Duty Travel (TDY). 

COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS AN: 

There is no previous AN that has been issued on this subject.

BACKGROUND: 

Rural Development (RD) Instruction 2036-A, and the Department Regulation 

2300-005 Agriculture Travel Regulation (ATR), dated December 8, 2015, do not 

provide guidance for submitting POV mileage reimbursement supporting

documentation. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) §301-10.302 describes

how to determine distance measurements for travel when requesting 

reimbursement. 

IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES: 

Travelers must provide supporting mileage documentation for all POV mileage 

reimbursement requests. An example of supporting documentation includes 

screenshots or pictures of point-to-point mileage information from free online 

web mapping services, such as MapQuest, Google Maps, etc. Screen shots or 

pictures of vehicle odometers can also be submitted for documentation of actual

mileage driven. 

EXPIRATION DATE: FILING INSTRUCTIONS:

July 31, 2024 Preceding RD Instruction 2036-A 

July 14, 2023
Privately Owned Vehicle Mileage Supporting Documentation requirements for Temporary Duty 

Travel Reimbursement Claims

Sent by Electronic Mail to on _____at_____ a.m./p.m. by the Enterprise Office, Enterprise 

Operations Division. 

When reviewing travel vouchers in the ConcurGov Travel Management System, approval

officials must ensure all required supporting documentation is uploaded and associated mileage 

expenses claimed are accurate and complete. 

POV mileage supporting documentation requirements outlined in this AN ensure travelers are

properly reimbursed for all POV mileage costs associated with their authorized travel. This 

requirement will also enhance compliance with the FTR by decreasing the potential for 

fraudulent mileage claims. The standard GSA mileage rate is based on an annual study of the 

fixed and variable costs of operating an automobile and typically covers cost related to the 

operation of a POV (i.e., charges for repairs, depreciation, replacements, grease, oil, antifreeze,

towage, and similar speculative expenses, fuel, insurance, state and Federal taxes.)

If you have any questions regarding this AN, please contact the Travel and Transportation

Team via the Travel Assistance Request - PowerApps .
(November 16, 2006)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Lowe, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 462]

*980Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered September 17, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

While an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, defendant was involved in a physical altercation with another inmate. As a result, he was charged with violating prison disciplinary rules prohibiting assault, fighting and weapon possession. Defendant pleaded guilty to the fighting charge but, following a tier III disciplinary hearing, was found not guilty of assault and possession of a weapon.

Based upon the same incident, defendant was subsequently indicted for promoting prison contraband in the first degree and attempted assault in the second degree. Defendant then moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. County Court denied the motion, finding that the People were not a party to the prior prison disciplinary hearing and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to litigate the underlying issues. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree and was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement as a second felony offender to a prison term of IV2 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

County Court properly denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Collateral estoppel does not prohibit criminal prosecution for conduct which was previously the subject of a noncriminal proceeding (see *People v Fagan,*66 NY2d 815, 816 [1985]; *People v McEachin,*29 AD3d 1221, 1223 [2006]; *People v Heath,*24 AD3d 876, 877-878 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 813 [2006]). Moreover, as County Court noted, collateral estoppel could not apply in this instance as there was no identity of parties. The Department of Correctional Services, which prosecuted the prison disciplinary hearing, is not a representative of “ ‘[t]he People’ in the distinctive and customary usage of that term for prosecutorial purposes” *(People v Kelly,*88 NY2d 248, 253 [1996]). Thus, the People cannot be said to have been a party to the disciplinary hearing and, consequently, were not afforded the opportunity to participate in the litigation of the issues.

Next, inasmuch as the record reveals neither an abuse of *981discretion by County Court nor the existence of any extraordinary circumstances, we will not disturb defendant’s lawful and agreed-upon sentence *(see People v Sieber,*26 AD3d 535, 536 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 853 [2006]; *People v Baker,*6 AD3d 751, 751 [2004]).

Cardona, EJ., Spain, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
### §§2001, 2002. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Section 2001, Pub. L. 92–513, title V, §501, as added Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §301, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 901; amended Pub. L. 96–425, §§4(c)(1), 8(b), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1824, 1828; Pub. L. 100–494, §6(b), Oct. 14, 1988, 102 Stat. 2452; Pub. L. 102–486, title IV, §403(1), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2876, defined terms for purposes of this subchapter. See section 32901 of Title 49, Transportation.

Section 2002, Pub. L. 92–513, title V, §502, as added Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §301, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 902; amended Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §305, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 580; Pub. L. 96–425, §§3(a)(1), 5, 6(b), 7, 8(c), (d), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1821, 1825, 1826, 1828; Pub. L. 100–494, §6(c), Oct. 14, 1988, 102 Stat. 2452; Pub. L. 102–486, title IV, §403(2), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2876, related to average fuel economy standards. See sections 32902, 32903, and 32916 of Title 49.
#### § 327.9 Burlap wrapping for foreign meat.

Burlap shall not be used as a wrapping for foreign meat unless the meat is first wrapped with a good grade of paper or cloth of a kind which will prevent contamination with lint or other foreign material.
#### § 555.4 Handling of fish products that may have become adulterated.

The provisions of § 325.10 of this chapter regarding the handling of products that may have become adulterated or misbranded apply to fish and fish products.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000363

14-JUN-2017

08:28 AM
### §330a. Report requirement; form; information; time of submission

No person may engage, or attempt to engage, in any weather modification activity in the United States unless he submits to the Secretary such reports with respect thereto, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary may by rule prescribe. The Secretary may require that such reports be submitted to him before, during, and after any such activity or attempt.

(Pub. L. 92–205, §2, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 736.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000913496
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUNDIV, L.P., SERIES 1
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                             341,350
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   341,350
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,639,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,533,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,639,835
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,084
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       37,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   186,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (219,762)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (219,762)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (219,762)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (21.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>