alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1982

ROBERT S. WILLIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;

DIRECTOR OF FBI; PATIENT FIRST; PORTSMOUTH

FAMILY PRACTICE; FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-03-127-2)

Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert S. Willis, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Kristina Helen

Vaquera, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia; Paul R.

Schmidt, HUFF, POOLE & MAHONEY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia;

John Wayne Brown, Hugh Edward Black, III, Chesapeake, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert S. Willis appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and

find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Willis v.

Attorney Gen. of the United States, No. CA-03-127-2 (E.D. Va. July

3, 2003). 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
### §205f. Duties of Board

In carrying out its duties under this subchapter, the Board may—

(1) establish an Executive Committee, and such other committees as it deems desirable;

(2) establish such committees and advisory panels as it deems necessary to work with the various sectors of the Nation's economy and with Federal and State governmental agencies in the development and implementation of detailed conversion plans for those sectors. The Board may reimburse, to the extent authorized by law, the members of such committees;

(3) conduct hearings at such times and places as it deems appropriate;

(4) enter into contracts, in accordance with chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41, with Federal or State agencies, private firms, institutions, and individuals for the conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports, and other activities necessary to the discharge of its duties;

(5) delegate to the Executive Director such authority as it deems advisable; and

(6) perform such other acts as may be necessary to carry out the duties prescribed by this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 94–168, §7, Dec. 23, 1975, 89 Stat. 1011.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In par. (4), "chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41" substituted for "the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)" on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, which Act enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, and Pub. L. 111–350, §6(c), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3854, which Act enacted Title 41, Public Contracts.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLOR957000-L631000000-HD000: HAG11-0150]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management Oregon/Washington State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days from the date of this publication.

## Willamette Meridian

### Oregon

T. 23 S., R. 8 W., accepted January 25, 2011

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., accepted January 25, 2011

T. 35 S., R. 5 W., accepted January 27, 2011

T. 34 S., R. 2 W., accepted February 10, 2011

T. 30 S., R. 3 W., accepted February 10, 2011

T. 21 S., R. 8 W., accepted February 22, 2011

### Washington

T. 29 N., R. 36 E., accepted January 21, 2011

# ADDRESSES:

                        A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Land Office at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington State Office, 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon                               ( print page 12753)                            required payment. A person or party who wishes to protest against a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest (at the above address) with the Oregon/Washington State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6124, Branch of Geographic Sciences, Bureau of Land Management, 333 SW. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204.

Fred O'Ferrall,

Chief, Branch of Land, Mineral, and Energy Resources.

[FR Doc. 2011-5175 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
# C_2012258EN.01003001.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/30

---

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-527/10

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 227 of 28 July 2012, p. 20
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 227 of 28 July 2012, p. 20

2012/C 258/55

The OJ notice in Case T-527/10 Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail) should read as follows:

Google

OHIM — G-mail (GMail)

Order of the General Court of 6 June 2012 — Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail)

(Case T-527/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 258/55

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Google, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: G-mail GmbH (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: S. Eble, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2010 (Case R 342/2010-4) in relation to opposition proceedings between Giersch Ventures LLC and Google, Inc.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,904

EX PARTE CHARLES ANISON ROGERS, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F7887-A IN THE 8 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to sixty (60) years’ imprisonment. The

Sixth Court of Appeals dismissed Applicant’s appeal. Rogers v. State, No.06-06-00145-CR (Tex.

App. – Texarkana, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication.)

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. The record shows that the Sixth Court of Appeals dismissed
Rogers -- 2

Applicant’s direct appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely filed and that Applicant had not

waived his appellate rights.

On August 22, 2007, this Court remanded this application to get an affidavit from counsel.

On August 27, 2007, the trial judge ordered appellate counsel to file an affidavit, but counsel failed

to respond. On March 19, 2008, the trial judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law

recommending that relief be granted. 

We find that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the

judgment of conviction in Cause No. F7887-A from the 8th Judicial District Court of Franklin

County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal

so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be

calculated as ifthe sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues.

We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file

a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: April 30, 2008

Do Not Publish
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Applications for Grants to Help Rural Businesses 

Produce and Market Value-Added Products

WASHINGTON, June 28, 2021 – The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) today announced that 

it is accepting applications for grants to establish and operate Agriculture Innovation Centers.

USDA is making $7.4 million available under the Agriculture Innovation Center Program. Agriculture 

Innovation Centers may use the grants to provide technical assistance to help agricultural producers develop and 

market value-added agricultural products using a variety of options, except joint marketing efforts. The centers 

may provide the following types of assistance:

• financial advisory services to develop, expand or operate a business owned by an agricultural producer;

• process development services, such as engineering, production system scale ups, scale production 

assessments and systems development;

• organizational assistance, including legal and technical advisory services;

• outreach assistance; 

• technical assistance for product development, excluding research and development; and

• technical assistance for applied research to develop and operate processes and systems to produce and 

market value-added agricultural products.

Eligible applicants include nonprofit and for-profit corporations, public bodies and institutions of higher 

education. Consortiums are also eligible to apply, but they must select a single organization to represent the 

consortium as the applicant. Only the applicant organization must meet the eligibility requirements 

Recipients must provide matching funds of least one-third of the total project budget. The total project budget 

must include both grant award and matching funds.

Applications for grants must be submitted through Grants.gov no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Sept.

27, 2021. For more information, see page 33969 of the June 28, 2021, Federal Register.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5339]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35414]


Gulf & Ohio Railways, Inc., H. Peter Claussen and Linda C. 
Claussen--Continuance in Control Exemption--Lancaster & Chester 
Railroad, LLC

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

ACTION: Correction to notice of exemption.

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

    On October 15, 2010, notice of the above exemption was served and 
published in the Federal Register (75 FR 63,533). The exemption became 
effective on October 31, 2010. On February 16, 2011, a correction was 
filed with the Board advising that the parent company, which was 
inadvertently referred to in the continuance in control filing as 
``Gulf & Ohio Railways Holding Co., Inc.'' should have been referred to 
as ``Gulf & Ohio Railways, Inc.'' This notice corrects the name of the 
parent company. All other information in the notice is correct.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: March 4, 2011.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2011-5339 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street, ORA-1

San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: SIP Revision to the Arizona State SIPfor the Update to the Stage 11 Vapor Recovery Program

Dear

It has come to our attention that official published copies ofthe Arizona Revised Statues (ARS) and Rules

included as enclosures 3 and 4 (respectively) ofthe September 21, 2009 Sip Revision to the Arizona State

SIPfor the Update to the Stage II Vapor Recovery Program are required for the evaluation of the

submission. Please replace the previously submitted enclosures 3 and 4 with the attached official copies:Enclosure 3

Arizona Revised Statutes:

(1) Title 41, chapter 15, article 1, section 41-2051, subsections (6), (10), (11), (12), and (13)- (i.e., the

definitions of certification, Department, Diesel fuel, Director, and E85);

(2) Title 41, chapter 15, article 6, section 41-2121, subsection (5)- (i.e., the definition of gasoline); and (3) Title 41. chapter 15, article 7, sections 41-2131, 41-2132, and 41-2133.

Enclosure 4

Arizona Administrative Code:

(I) Title 20, chapter 2, article 1, section R20-2- 101; and

(2) Title 20, chapter 2, article 9, sections R20-2-901 -R20-2-905 and R20-2-907 - R20-2-912.

Sincerely,

Eric C. M

Director, uality DivisionEnclosures (2)

cc: Colleen McKaughan

Northern Regional Office Southern Regional Office

1801 W. Route 66 • Suite 117• Flagstaff, AZ 86001 400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701

(928) 779-0313 (520) 628-6733

Printed on recycled paper
### §§32, 33. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–452, title II, §§209, 210, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 929

Section 32, act Feb. 25, 1903, ch. 755, §1, 32 Stat. 904, granted immunity from prosecution to witnesses testifying or producing evidence, documentary or otherwise, in any proceeding, suit, or prosecution under section 1 to 11 of this title. See section 6001 et seq. of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 33, act June 30, 1906, ch. 3920, 34 Stat. 798, provided that, under the immunity provisions of former section 32 of this title, immunity was to extend only to a natural person who, in obedience to a subpoena, testified or produced evidence.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on sixtieth day following Oct. 15, 1970, see section 260 of Pub. L. 91–452, set out as an Effective Date; Savings Provision note under section 6001 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal of sections by Pub. L. 91–452 not to affect any immunity to which any individual was entitled under sections by reason of any testimony given before the sixtieth day following Oct. 15, 1970, see section 260 of Pub. L. 91–452, set out as an Effective Date; Savings Provision note under section 6001 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
#### § 1308.15 Finality of decisions.

A decision by a Contracting Officer under the disputes clause of a contract subject to this part is final and conclusive and not subject to review by any forum, tribunal, or Government agency unless an appeal or suit is timely commenced under this part or section 10(a) (2) and (3) of the Act.
§ 78.31 Brucellosis reactor swine. ( a ) *Destination.* Brucellosis reactor swine may be moved interstate only for immediate slaughter as follows: ( 1 ) Directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; or
( 2 ) Directly to a stockyard posted under the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 *et seq.*), or directly to a market agency or dealer registered under the Packers and Stockyards Act, for sale to a recognized slaughtering eatablishment in accordance with the following requirements:
( b ) *Identification.* Brucellosis reactor swine shall be individually identified by attaching to the left ear a metal tag bearing a serial number and the inscription, “U.S. Reactor,” or a metal tag bearing a serial number designated by the State animal health official for identifying brucellosis reactors.
( c ) *Permit.* Brucellosis reactor swine shall be accompanied to destination by a permit.
( d ) *Marking of records.* Each person moving brucellosis reactor swine interstate shall, in the course of interstate movement, plainly write or stamp the words “Brucellosis Reactor” upon the face of any document that person prepares in connection with such movement.
( e ) *Segregation en route.* Brucellosis reactor swine shall not be moved interstate in any means of conveyance containing animals which are not brucellosis reactors unless all of the animals in the shipment are for immediate slaughter, or unless the brucellosis reactor swine are kept separate from other animals by a partition securely affixed to the sides of the means of conveyance.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0051) [51 FR 32580, Sept. 12, 1986, as amended at 59 FR 67133, Dec. 29, 1994]
#### § 381.207 Small importations for consignee's personal use, display, or laboratory analysis.

Any poultry product (other than one which is forbidden entry by other Federal law or regulation) from any country in quantities of less than 50 pounds net weight, exclusively for the personal use of the consignee, or for display or laboratory analysis by the consignee, and not for sale or distribution; which is sound, healthful, wholesome, and fit for human food, and which is not adulterated and contains no substance not permitted by the Act or regulations, may be imported into the United States without a foreign inspection certificate, and such product is not required to be inspected upon arrival in the United States and may be shipped to the consignee without further restriction under this part, except as provided in § 381.199(c): *And provided,* That the Department may with respect to any specific importation, require that the consignee certify that such product is exclusively for the personal use of said consignee, or for display or laboratory analysis by said consignee, and not for sale or distribution.

[37 FR 9706, May 16, 1972, as amended at 54 FR 41050, Oct. 5, 1989]
#### Douglas *vs.*Merceles and others.

1. A refusal by a master to adjourn an examination at request of counsel of some of tlie defendants, to afford Mm an opportunity to produce witnesses in behalf of those whom lie represents, should he conclude to do so, is good cause for a motion to set aside the report. Exceptions to the report in such case is not correct practice.

2. Irregularities of the master in his proceedings, or neglect to report on the matters referred, are properly brought before the court by motion to set aside the report or to refer it back to be perfected.

On motion to set aside report, because of the master’s refusal to adjourn, to permit counsel to produce witnesses in behalf of some of the defendants, should he conclude to do so.

*Mr. Griggs,*for the motion.

*Mr. A. B. Woodruff,*contra.

*26The Chancellor.

On the examination of witnesses before the master, under the order of reference in this cause, the counsel of some of the defendants requested an adjournment, to afford him an opportunity to produce witnesses in behalf of those whom he represented, should he conclude to do so. This request was denied. He now moves to set aside the report for that cause. It is urged in opposition, that having failed to except to the report within the time limited for the purpose, he cannot now be heard on this objection. This position is not well taken. The provision of exceptions to the report of a master, is to call in question the conclusions to which he may have come upon the subject referred to him. Irregularities in his proceedings, or neglect to report on the matters referred, are properly brought before the court by motion to set aside the report or to refer it back to be perfected. *Tyler*v. *Simmons, 6 Paige*127.

I am satisfied that in the present case the opportunity sought by the defendants should be afforded. Let the report be referred back to the master, with directions to give the parties reasonable opportunity for the production of further testimony.
(67 South. 950)

No. 20837.

#### STATE v. COURIS.

(Feb. 23, 1915.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1915.)

Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; J. R. Land, Judge.

Tony Couris was convicted of violating an ordinance of a police jury, and appeals.

Reversed, and defendant ordered discharged.

Scheen & Blanchard and E. P. Mills, all of Shreveport, for appellant. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and W. A. Mabry, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport (G. A. Gondran, of.New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.

MONROE, C.' J.

This case presents the same questions that are presented in the cases of State v. Emmet Hagen, 67 South. 935,2 and State v. Whitbeck and Harris, 67 South. 949,3 this day decided, and is governed by the same principles of law. For *the*reasons assigned in those cases, therefore, the conviction and sentence herein appealed from are set aside, and the defendant ordered to be discharged.

PROVOSTY, LAND, and O’NIELL, JJ., *concur*in the decree, on the ground that the police jury was without authority to pass the ordinance in question.

O’NIELL, J., is of the opinion that this court is without jurisdiction, for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in State v. Hagen, 67 South. 942.

2

Ante, p. 868.

3

Ante, p. 886.