alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.

App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court g enerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be c ited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 30 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. No. 97-2156 (D.C. No. CIV-96-1703-LH) (District of New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , BALDOCK and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Appellant Michael Thompson, appearing pro se, seeks leave to appeal an order of the District Court for the District of New Mexico denying with prejudice his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sen tence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We deny appellant a certificate of appealabi lity because he has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a const itutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), and dismiss the appeal.- 2 -

Thompson pled guilty on March 18, 1994 to possessio n with intent to distribute of 42.4 milligrams of LSD in violation o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). The district court calculated an off ense level of 20 and criminal history category of VI, after applying downward dep artures for acceptance of responsibility and mitigating circumstances and an enhancement for being a career offender. Appellant was sentenced to seventy-two months from an applicable guideline range of seventy to eighty-sev en months. He now challenges his sentence on only one ground -- that his origina l offense level without any adjustments was miscalculated at level 12 instead o f level 10. The Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) sets forth the respective base offense levels for possession of various amoun ts of drugs. Subsection (14) establishes an offense level of 12 for possession o f “Less than 50 MG of LSD.” The district court correctly calculated the base of fense level in sentencing appellant for possession of less than one gram of L SD. Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealabil ity is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forth with. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge
Dear Homeowner:

Why We Are Writing:

The President declared a National Emergency because of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

outbreak. Rural Development (RD) is here to help.

How can we help you?

• Payment Assistance: If your household income has decreased and you don’t think you can 

make your mortgage payment, call us and ask for a Payment Assistance package. We will 

review the information you provide and determine if you are eligible for payment assistance 

or for more assistance than you currently receive.

• Moratorium Assistance for up to 180 days: If you are experiencing financial hardship due, 

directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency, you can call us and verbally request a 

payment moratorium. Borrowers have the option to cancel the moratorium at any time or 

request the moratorium be extended up to an additional 180 days. 

How to contact us:

Call a Customer Service Representative at 1-800-414-1226 or TDD/TTY 1-800-438-1832. Beginning July 

6, 2020, regular hours are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday Central Time (CT). Have your 

account number and social security number ready. You can also look at your account online and make 

payments through the RD Home Loans website https://rdhomeloans.usda.gov. Click on the “Register” 

button and follow the steps if you do not have a userid and password.

This situation is changing, and we will let you know if anything affects our ability to provide service to 

you.

Sincerely,

USDA, Rural Development, Customer Service Center
(40 South. 365.)

No. 15,944.

#### STATE v. DENOIST.

(Feb. 26, 1906.)

Counties — Police Juries — Ordinances —

Validity.

In the absence of anything in the ordinance itself to indicate that a word has not been used in its ordinary meaning the court will understand that it has been so used. So understanding the word “collation,” it describes nothing that could fall within the cognizance of the police powers of police juries, which possess only such powers as are expressly conferred upon them by law. Therefore, a police jury ordinance making it an indictable offense to “give or hold, or participate at, what is commonly called a ‘collation,’ ” is unauthorized, and null.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Eleventh Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches; Charles Vernon Porter, Judge.

Emile Denoist was indicted for holding a collation in violation of an ordinance. From a judgment quashing the indictment, the state appeals.

Affirmed.

Walter Guión, Atty. Gen., and William Augustus Wilkinson, Dist. Atty. (Lewis Guión, of counsel), for the State. Samuel Jamison Henry, for appellee.

PROVOSTY, J.

An ordinance of the police jury of Natchitoches provides:

> “That it shall be unlawful to have or hold what are commonly known as ‘collations,’ and that any person or persons who shall give or hold what is commonly known as a ‘collation,’ and all persons at or participating at such collations, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, etc.”

This ordinance was held by the lower court to be void, and the indictment against defendant under it was quashed, and the state has appealed.

Police juries have only such powers as are expressly delegated to them by statute. Looking over the list of these powers, we find none to which the right to enact this ordinance could possibly be referred. The only one which could be invoked with any semblance of plausibility as conferring the power would be that “to regulate the police of taverns and houses of public entertainment.” Perhaps the word “collation,” as used in the ordinance, has a local meaning approximately synonymous with “house of public entertainment;” but, if so, the court is not advised of the fact, and, in the absence of such information, must take the word in its ordinary meaning in which it describes “a luncheon,”- “a devout work,” etc.; things which clearly do not come within the cognizance of the police jury.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 27.2 The Chair, Vice Chair.

The members of the Board shall select from among its membership a Chairperson, hereinafter the Chair, who shall serve as the chief executive and administrative officer of the Board. The Members of the Board may select from among its membership a Vice Chairperson, hereinafter the Vice Chair, who shall serve in the absence of the Chair and in other matters delegated by the Chair.
EXHIBIT 21        SUBSIDIARIES OF FIRSTSERVICE CORPORATION

Name of subsidiary

Percentage owned by Registrant(1)

Jurisdiction of incorporationAmerican Pool Enterprises, Inc.(2)

87.50%

DelawareBDP Business Data Services, Ltd.

86.00%

OntarioBLW, Inc. (d/b/a Security Services and Technologies ("SST"))(3)

82.90%

PennsylvaniaDDS Distribution Services, Ltd.(4)

87.50%

OntarioDickinson Management, Inc.

80.00%

FloridaFirstService (U.S.A.), Inc.

100.00%

DelawareFirstService (U.S.A.) Security Holdings Inc.

100.00%

DelawareFirstService Continental Inc.

100.00%

FloridaFirstService Delaware, LLC

87.10%

DelawareFirstService Delaware, LP

87.10%

DelawareFirstService Financial Inc.

100.00%

PennsylvaniaFirstService GP, Inc.

100.00%

OntarioFirstService Nova Scotia Corp.

87.10%

Nova ScotiaFirstService Watts Ltd.

100.00%

OntarioGreenspace Services Ltd.(5)

90.00%

OntarioIntercon Security Ltd.(6)

100.00%

OntarioPrime Management Group, Inc.(7)

100.00%

FloridaRossmar & Graham Community Association Management, Inc.

100.00%

ArizonaSuperior Pool, Spa and Leisure Ltd.

65.00%

OntarioThe Continental Group, Inc.

87.30%

FloridaThe Continental Group, Ltd.(8)

87.30%

FloridaThe Franchise Company, Inc.(9)

82.60%

OntarioThe Wentworth Group, Inc.(10)

90.29%

PennsylvaniaWatts Communications Inc.

97.60%

OntarioWatts NCH Promotional Services Ltd.

100.00%

Ontario


---

Notes

67

---

QuickLinks
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Connecticut�s forest resources.**
 
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.163/7:
Item Number:0084-N-07 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000965604
 
March 29, 2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Wilmot, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 800]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered August 26, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [2]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge to exclude a black prospective juror. We agree. Following defendant’s *Batson*objection, the prosecutor explained that he was exercising the peremptory challenge because of the age and lack of “lifelong experience” of the juror. “[W]hile age is, facially, a race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge to a juror, an explanation based upon age can become pretextual if it bears no relationship to the facts of the case . . . , or if other jurors of a similar age are not objected to on that ground” *(People v Smalls,*249 AD2d 495, 495 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 986 [1998]). Here, the fact that the prospective juror at issue *1226was 19 years old bore no relationship to the facts of the case *(see People v Burroughs,*295 AD2d 959 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 534 [2002]). Further, the prosecutor did not exercise a peremptory challenge to exclude a 22-year-old white male prospective juror who had a similar background with respect to his education and living arrangement. We thus conclude that the prosecutor’s explanation was pretextual, and we reverse the judgment of conviction and grant a new trial *(see id.).*Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). In view of our determination, we do not address defendant’s remaining contentions. Present—Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Martoche, Centra and Pine, JJ.
### §1681f. Disclosures to governmental agencies

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1681b of this title, a consumer reporting agency may furnish identifying information respecting any consumer, limited to his name, address, former addresses, places of employment, or former places of employment, to a governmental agency.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VI, §608, as added Pub. L. 91–508, title VI, §601, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1131.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of one hundred and eighty days following Oct. 26, 1970, see section 504(d) of Pub. L. 90–321, as added by Pub. L. 91–508, set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.
# C_2010288EN.01004502.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/45

---

Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Leifheit v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (Twist System)

(Case T-334/10)

()

(2010/C 288/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 May 2010 in joined Cases R 924/2009-1 and R 1013/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 May 2010 in joined Cases R 924/2009-1 and R 1013/2009-1;

| — | Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

| — | In the event that Vermop Salmon intervenes in the proceedings, order the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the event that Vermop Salmon intervenes in the proceedings, order the intervener to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘Twist System’ for goods in Classes 7, 8 and 21

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Vermop Salmon GmbH

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: the word mark ‘TWIX’ for goods in Class 21 and the word mark ‘TWIXTER’ for goods in Classes 9, 12, 21, 22 and 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for a declaration of invalidity was partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Vermop Salmon’s appeal to have the applicant’s mark declared invalid in respect of additional goods was upheld and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the First Board of Appeal of OHIM did not examine whether the evidence of use put forward by Vermop Salmon is sufficient to prove genuine use of the earlier Community trade marks; infringement of the first and second sentences of Article 57(2) in conjunction with Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the evidence of use which Vermop Salmon placed on the case-file does not prove genuine use of the earlier Community trade marks; and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the marks at issue are not similar.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---
Enclosure Page 2

FCIC Interpretation of Procedure

Risk Management Agency Interpretation of Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Provisions:

Subject: Request dated April 13, 2021, to the Risk Management Agency (RMA) for an interpretation 

of whether section 9(g) of the 2019 Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) Pilot Policy allows an 

Approved Insurance Provider (AIP) to reduce the expected yield or expected value for a commodity 

after coverage has attached and the AIP has reviewed and approved the revenue.

The relevant policy provision provided by the requestor is section 9(g):

9. Coverage

...

(g) We will reduce your approved revenue and any indemnity or deny coverage at any time we 

become aware that the information used to determine your approved revenue is incorrect 

or is not supported by verifiable records. Your premium will be adjusted to reflect any 

revised approved revenue.

Interpretation Submitted by Requestor(s)

The requestor’s interpretation of section 9(g) of the 2019 WFRP Policy is an AIP is authorized to 

reduce the yield or expected price for a commodity and make any resulting reductions to approved 

revenue and/or indemnity “at any time” it is determined the expected yield, expected value, or other 

information used to determine the insured’s approved revenue “is incorrect or is not supported by 

verifiable records.” The requestor interprets the phrase “at any time” to mean that such a reduction 

can occur after coverage attaches, including during adjustment of the claim. For example, if, during 

the adjustment of a claim, the AIP determines that a commodity’s yield or expected value was not 

established in accordance with the terms of the WFRP policy or handbook or is not supported by 

verifiable records, the AIP may revise the yield or expected value and reduce coverage accordingly. 

The requestor’s interpretation of section 9(g) has been adopted by the FCIC in other cases, most 

recently in WFRP Interpretation of Procedure PM-C-20-181 (published on the RMA’s website).

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Determination

FCIC agrees with the requestor’s interpretation that section 9(g) of the 2019 WFRP Pilot Policy 

authorizes the AIP to reduce the expected yield or expected value for a commodity and make any 

resulting reductions to the insured’s approved revenue and/or indemnity, at any time, it is determined 

the expected yield, expected value, or other information used to determine the insured’s approved 

revenue is incorrect or not supported by verifiable records.

In accordance with section 33(a)(1) of the WFRP Pilot Policy, this FCIC interpretation is generally 

applicable and binding in any mediation or arbitration. In accordance with section 33(a)(1), any 

appeal of this interpretation must be in accordance with 7 C.F.R. part 11.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21


The following is a list of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company
as of December 31, 2001. All of the subsidiaries are wholly owned, and are
included in the Consolidated Financial Statements, which are a part of this
report.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    State of
Name of Company                                   Incorporation
----------------------------------------          ------------

<S>                                               <C>
Regent Broadcasting, Inc.                            Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Albany, Inc.                  Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Chico, Inc.                   Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of El Paso, Inc.                 Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Erie, Inc.                    Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Flagstaff, Inc.               Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Flint, Inc.                   Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Grand Rapids, Inc.            Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Kingman, Inc.                 Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Lafayette, Inc.               Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Lake Tahoe, Inc.              Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Lexington, Inc.               Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Mansfield, Inc.               Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Palmdale, Inc.                Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Peoria, Inc.                  Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Redding, Inc.                 Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of San Diego, Inc.               Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of South Carolina, Inc.          Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of St. Cloud, Inc.               Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of St. Cloud II, Inc.            Minnesota
Regent Broadcasting of Utica/Rome, Inc.              Delaware
Regent Broadcasting of Watertown, Inc.               Delaware
Regent Broadcasting Midwest, Inc.                    Delaware
Regent Broadcasting West Coast, Inc.                 California
Regent Licensee of Chico, Inc.                       Delaware
Regent Licensee of El Paso, Inc.                     Delaware
Regent Licensee of Erie, Inc.                        Delaware
Regent Licensee of Flagstaff, Inc.                   Delaware
Regent Licensee of Kingman, Inc.                     Delaware
Regent Licensee of Lake Tahoe, Inc.                  Delaware
Regent Licensee of Lexington, Inc.                   Delaware
Regent Licensee of Mansfield, Inc.                   Delaware
Regent Licensee of Palmdale, Inc.                    Delaware
Regent Licensee of Redding, Inc.                     Delaware
Regent Licensee of San Diego, Inc.                   Delaware
Regent Licensee of South Carolina, Inc.              Delaware
Regent Licensee of St. Cloud, Inc.                   Delaware
Regent Licensee of Utica/Rome, Inc.                  Delaware
Regent Licensee of Watertown, Inc.                   Delaware
RepCom, Inc.                                         Minnesota
Sartell FM, Inc.                                     Minnesota

</TABLE>
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Expands Access to Four Key Loan Programs

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10, 2021 – USDA Rural Development Under Secretary Xochitl Torres Small today 

announced the Department is expanding access to four loan guarantee programs that provide funding to help 

rural communities create jobs and improve local infrastructure.

This expansion continues the Department’s regulatory reforms to make it easier for communities and lenders to 

access USDA funding. The OneRD Guarantee Loan Initiative reduced paperwork and adopted a common loan 

note guarantee application for the Water and Waste Disposal Loan Guarantee Program; the Community 

Facilities Guaranteed Loan Program; the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program; and the Rural 

Energy for America Guaranteed Loan Program.

Today’s improvements include allowing eligible entities to use the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan 

program to finance rural broadband and telecommunications projects that are not eligible for funding under

USDA Rural Utilities Service programs. Also, the Department has clarified when utility projects that serve rural 

and non-rural areas are eligible for a USDA loan guarantee.

The Department is no longer requiring lenders to maintain a minimum 50 basis points servicing fee from 

holders or other participants in the guarantee. Additionally, USDA now says it will consider loan guarantees for 

infrastructure and business projects in addition to those listed in the initial October 2020 regulation.

For more information on the regulatory changes and how to apply to the programs under this initiative, visit 

www.rd.usda.gov/onerdguarantee. 

To learn more about investment resources for rural areas, interested parties should contact their USDA Rural 

Development state office and see page 70349 of the Dec. 10, 2021, Federal Register.

USDA Rural Development provides loans and grants to help expand economic opportunities and create jobs in 

rural areas. This assistance supports infrastructure improvements; business development; housing; community 

facilities such as schools, public safety and health care; and high-speed internet access in rural areas. For more 

information, visit www.rd.usda.gov.

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.