alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 3- 37 97

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Ju st in R. Bic ke t
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 4, 2 01 4 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 6, 2 01 4 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ju st in Bi ck et , wh o w a s c o n v i c te d of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm aft er a jury tri al , se e Uni te d St at es v. Bi ck et , 49 7 Fed

. App x. 67 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (p ercu ria m ), ap pe al s th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s or de r de nyin g hi s 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n 1 wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng . In h is m ot io n, Bi ck et cla im ed th at hi s tri al co un se l pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce by fai li ng to m ov e to di sm is s th e in di ct men t o n sp eed y -tr ia l g ro un ds , and by fail in g t o c om m un ic at e a g ov ern m en t p le a o ffer

.

Fo ll owi ng de no vo rev ie w, we con cl ud e th e de ni al of rel ie f was pr op er. The

reco rd es ta bl is he s th at Bi ck et ’s co un se l so ug ht co nt in ua nc es to pr ep are fo r tri al , th at Bi ck et waiv ed hi s sp eed y -tr ia l rig ht s, an d th at co un se l’s de ci si on no t to se ek di sm is sa l of th e in di ct m en t di d no t am ou nt to de fic ie nt pe rfo rm an ce. See Tho m as v. U n i t e d St at es , 73 7 F.3 d 12 02 , 12 06 , 12 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w; de ci si on whe th er to m ov e to di sm is s fo r sp eed y tri al vi ol at io n is ta ct ic al de ci si on of tri al st rat eg y ), cert

. de ni ed , 13 4 S. Ct

. 23 23 (2 01 4)

. Fu rth er, Bi ck et ’s at te st at io ns in

su pp or t of hi s se co nd in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m --t ha t hi s co un se l “ ne ve r” in fo rm ed hi m of a pl ea of

fer- -were co nt rad ic te d by th e reco rd , in cl ud in g by hi s te st im on y at hi s
se nt en ci ng he ari ng th at he was aware of a sp eci fic ev e-o f-t ria l pl ea of fer. The de ni al of rel ie f wit ho ut an ev id en ti ary he ari ng was th us no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n. See W in te rs v. Uni te d St at es , 71 6 F.3 d 10 98 , 11 03 (8 th Ci r.) (§ 22 55 m ot i o n may be di sm is se d wit ho ut he ari ng if m ov an t’s al le ga ti on s, acce pt ed as tru e, wou ld no t en ti tl e hi m to rel ie f; or if al le ga ti on s can no t be acce pt ed as tru e be cau se th ey are
co nt rad ic te d by reco rd , a r e i n h eren tl y in cred ib le , or are co nc lu si on s rat he r th an st at em en ts of f

act ), cert . den ie d, 1 34 S. Ct. 4 47 (20 13 ).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ly le E. St ro m , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1 Neb ras ka

. -2

-
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 14 PageID# 169

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 14 PageID# 170

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 3 of 14 PageID# 171

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 4 of 14 PageID# 172

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 5 of 14 PageID# 173

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 6 of 14 PageID# 174

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 7 of 14 PageID# 175

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 8 of 14 PageID# 176

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 9 of 14 PageID# 177

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 10 of 14 PageID# 178

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 11 of 14 PageID# 179

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 12 of 14 PageID# 180

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 13 of 14 PageID# 181

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 14
Case 3:20-cv-00380-DJN Document 4 Filed 07/14/20 Page 14 of 14 PageID# 182

Case 19-03082-KRH Doc 74 Filed 07/15/20 Entered 07/15/20 11:29:31 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 14
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Q Comm International, Inc.
        (the " Company ")
        on
        Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission (" SEC ")
        on the
        date hereof (the " Report "),
        I,
        Michael D. Keough, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to
        18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (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.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will
        be
        retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
        request.
 
 
 /s/
        Michael D.
        Keough
 Michael
        D. Keough
 Chief
        Executive Officer and President
 
 May
        22,
        2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001102756
<NAME>                          Investment Technology, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                              1
<CURRENCY>                                                       US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                    JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                           1
<CASH>                                                                 2820
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        208000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     208282
<PP&E>                                                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      1194794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                208000
<BONDS>                                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<COMMON>                                                              10453
<OTHER-SE>                                                           976341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        1194794
<SALES>                                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                          0
<CGS>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         79074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     8051
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      (71074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                  (71074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         (71074)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         (0.01)



</TABLE>
#### § 463.725 What happens if consensus on infrastructure funding is not reached at the local level between the Local Workforce Development Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners?

With regard to negotiations for infrastructure funding for Program Year (PY) 2017 and for each subsequent program year thereafter, if the Local WDB, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners do not reach consensus on methods of sufficiently funding local infrastructure through the local funding mechanism in accordance with the Governor's guidance issued under § 463.705 and consistent with the regulations in §§ 463.715 and 463.720, and include that consensus agreement in the signed MOU, then the Local WDB must notify the Governor by the deadline established by the Governor under § 463.705(b)(3). Once notified, the Governor must administer funding through the State funding mechanism, as described in §§ 463.730 through 463.738, for the program year impacted by the local area's failure to reach consensus.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1783 NADINE YVETTE LAFELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (05-20562) Submitted: October 31, 2006 Decided: November 2, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nadine Yvette Lafell, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth L. Greene, Michael J. Haungs, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nadine Yvette Lafell appeals the tax court’s order dismissing her petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. Lafell v. Comm’r, IRS , Tax Ct. No. 05-20562 (U.S. Tax Ct. May 2, 2006). 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.
AFFIRMED
State of Vermont 

Superior Court—Environmental Division 

====================================================================== 

E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N 

====================================================================== 

Town of North Hero v. Herrington Docket No. 125-9-12 Vtec

Title: Consented-to Motion Reconsider and Correct “Findings” (Filing Nos. 3) 

Filed: May 22, 2013. 

Filed By: Defendant Larry Herrington, by his attorney, Erin M. Heins, Esq. 

The Town of North Hero consented to Defendant’s motion, as noted by Attorney Heins. 

 X Granted ___ Denied ___ Other 

The Court thanks the parties for bringing to its attention the error in its recitation of the 

factual background that was relevant to its May 10, 2013 Entry Order concerning the parties’ 

cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated in Defendant’s motion, the Court 

hereby STRIKES from its May 10, 2013 Entry Order the factual background paragraphs 

numbered 17 and 18 and hereby replace them with the following paragraphs: 

17. On June 30 of 2012, the current Zoning Administrator sent Defendant a letter alleging 

several zoning violations. A copy of this June 30, 2012 NOV was presented as Town 

Exhibit 12. The parties have stipulated that this letter did not constitute a formal notice 

of alleged zoning violations. 

18. Since the Town’s June 30, 2012 letter did not constitute a notice of alleged zoning 

violations, Defendant filed no appeal of that letter. The zoning violations alleged in the 

Town’s June 30, 2012 letter have therefore not become final and may be contested. 

We wish to make clear that none of the paragraphs itemized in the Court’s May 10, 2013 

Entry Order should be regarded as “factual findings.” The Court made no factual findings in 

rendering that pre-trial determination on the parties’ competing motions for summary 

judgment. Rather, the Court was merely reciting the material facts that appeared to be 

undisputed from its reading of the parties’ respective motions, legal memoranda, affidavits and 

other evidence. 

It is improper for a trial court to make factual findings before the parties are afforded an 

opportunity to present evidence at an evidentiary hearing; within the context of reviewing pretrial summary judgment motions, the trial court should merely recite its determination of which 

material facts appear to be undisputed. See All Cycle, Inc. v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 164 

Vt. 428, 437 (1995) (citing Crosby v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 143 Vt. 537, 539 (1983)). 

_________________________________________ June 19, 2013 

 Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date 

============================================================================= 

Date copies sent: ____________ Clerk's Initials: _______ 

Copies sent to: 

 Paul Gillies, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, the Town of North Hero 

 Erin M. Heins, Esq., attorney for Defendant Larry Herrington
§ 463.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism? ( a ) Consistent with sec. 121(h)(1)(A)(i)(II) of WIOA, if the Local WDB, chief elected official, and one-stop partners in a local area do not reach consensus agreement on methods of sufficiently funding the costs of infrastructure of one-stop centers for a program year, the State funding mechanism is applicable to the local area for that program year.
( b ) In the State funding mechanism, the Governor, subject to the limitations in paragraph (c) of this section, determines one-stop partner contributions after consultation with the chief elected officials, Local WDBs, and the State WDB. This determination involves: ( 1 ) The application of a budget for one-stop infrastructure costs as described in § 463.735, based on either agreement reached in the local area negotiations or the State WDB formula outlined in § 463.745;
( 2 ) The determination of each local one-stop partner program's proportionate use of the one-stop delivery system and relative benefit received, consistent with the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, including the Federal cost principles, the partner programs' authorizing laws and regulations, and other applicable legal requirements described in § 463.736; and
( 3 ) The calculation of required statewide program caps on contributions to infrastructure costs from one-stop partner programs in areas operating under the State funding mechanism as described in § 463.738.
( c ) In certain situations, the Governor does not determine the infrastructure cost contributions for some one-stop partner programs under the State funding mechanism. ( 1 ) The Governor will not determine the contribution amounts for infrastructure funds for Native American program grantees described in 20 CFR part 684. The appropriate portion of funds to be provided by Native American program grantees to pay for one-stop infrastructure must be determined as part of the development of the MOU described in § 463.500 and specified in that MOU.
( 2 ) In States in which the policy-making authority is placed in an entity or official that is independent of the authority of the Governor with respect to the funds provided for adult education and literacy activities authorized under title II of WIOA, postsecondary career and technical education activities authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, or VR services authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (other than sec. 112 or part C), as amended by WIOA title IV, the determination of the amount each of the applicable partners must contribute to assist in paying the infrastructure costs of one-stop centers must be made by the official or chief officer of the entity with such authority, in consultation with the Governor.
( d ) Any duty, ability, choice, responsibility, or other action otherwise related to the determination of infrastructure costs contributions that is assigned to the Governor in §§ 463.730 through 463.745 also applies to this decision-making process performed by the official or chief officer described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 4 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 5 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 6 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 7 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 8 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 9 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 10 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 11 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 12 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 13 of 14
Case 19-13121-KHK Doc 38-1 Filed 10/23/19 Entered 10/24/19 00:00:43 Desc

 Exhibit(s) Exhibit 1 Page 14 of 14
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

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

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

 November 30, 2016

p1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

152417(27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 152417

COA: 328196

Wayne CC: 10-009059-FH

EDWARD MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 26, 2016 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17967-17968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated November 19, 2010, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 3, 2010 75 FR 75494, Mylan Technologies, Inc., 110 
Lake Street, Saint Albans, Vermont 05478, made application by renewal 
to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an 
importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

[[Page 17968]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in 
finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing 
and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the 
company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required 
to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign 
markets.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the 
registration of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to import the basic classes 
of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and 
with United States obligations under international treaties, 
conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has 
investigated Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to ensure that the company's 
registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation 
has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security 
systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local 
laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer 
of the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

     Dated: March 21, 2011.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-7545 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P