alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6972

LARRY WAYNE SMITH , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Glen E. Conrad , District Judge. ( 7:17

- cv
- 00335

- GEC

- RSB )

Submitted : November 16, 2017 Decided: November 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Larry Wayne Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Larry Wayne Smith seeks to appeal the dist rict court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appea lability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurist s would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of
the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 266.400 Property requirements—real estate. The mortgage must be on real estate held: ( a ) In fee simple;
( b ) Under a renewable lease of not less than 99 years; or
( c ) Under a lease executed by a governmental agency, or other lessor approved by the HFA, that has a term at least 10 years beyond the end of the mortgage term.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2009\1604\Supplemental Briefing Order #3.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL NAIFY REVOCABLETRUST,

Plaintiff,

    v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Defendant.

                                                                      /

No. C 09-01604 CRB

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTALBRIEFING

The Government is ordered to respond to the following question:

Would it have been consistent with IRS practice to permit the Estate, after its

settlement with the California Franchise Tax Board, to file an amended or

supplemental estate tax return listing the settlement amount as a deduction?

The Government is ordered to file a response not to exceed five pages by August 16. 

Plaintiff, if it wishes, may similarly file a response not to exceed five pages by August 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01604-CRB   Document 33   Filed 08/09/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-10T18:37:51-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,215,499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  444,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,612,031
<PP&E>                                     121,428,027
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,263,044
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             126,708,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,091,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,250
<OTHER-SE>                                  62,847,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               126,708,736
<SALES>                                      5,976,507
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,764,476
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,119,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,053,262
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,325,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,733,747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,733,747)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,733,747)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.16)
        

</TABLE>
### §9411. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §902(e)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 560

Section, Pub. L. 96–398, title I, §101, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1566, set forth general provisions respecting community mental health centers.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 902(h) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 238l of this title.
§ 227.300 Professional and technical services. ( a ) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in § 227.100 (a), does not apply in the case of any reasonable payment to a person, other than an officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action, if the payment is for professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid, proposal, or application for that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving that Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) The reporting requirements in § 227.110 (a) and (b) regarding filing a disclosure form by each person, if required, shall not apply with respect to professional or technical services rendered directly in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan.
( c ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, “professional and technical services” shall be limited to advice and analysis directly applying any professional or technical discipline. For example, drafting or a legal document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an engineer on the performance or operational capability of a piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of a contract is allowable. However, communications with the intent to influence made by a professional (such as a licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed accountant) are not allowable under this section unless they provide advice and analysis directly applying their professional or technical expertise and unless the advice or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but generally advocate one proposal over another are not allowable under this section because the lawyer is not providing professional legal services. Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not allowable under this section since the engineer is providing technical services but not directly in the preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal action.
( d ) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition for receiving a covered Federal award include those required by law or regulation, or reasonably expected to be required by law or regulation, and any other requirements in the actual award documents.
( e ) Persons other than officers or employees of a person requesting or receiving a covered Federal action include consultants and trade associations.
( f ) Only those services expressly authorized by this section are allowable under this section.
### §2428. Interagency coordination and cooperation

#### (a) Consultation

The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture before promulgating criteria with respect to financial appraisal functions and loan guarantee administration for activities carried out under this subchapter.

#### (b) Memorandum of agreement

The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall enter into a memorandum of agreement providing for Department of Agriculture financial appraisal functions and loan guarantee administration for activities carried out under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 109–451, title II, §209, Dec. 22, 2006, 120 Stat. 3360.)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136012 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136012 

 COA: 275481 

Oakland CC: 2006-211099-FC 

QUANDEAL DEVON BUGGS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 5, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 92 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 92 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 3
April 9

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 92 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 3
#### Vitina M. Vitale, Appellant, v. Angelo Criscio, Respondent.

Order, entered on May 25, 1961, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### Frank Broux, plaintiff in error, v. The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error.

Charge of unlawfully having in possession property designed for manufacture of intoxicating liquor. Conviction obtained and sentence pronounced. Error to the Circuit Court of Christian county; the Hon. F. B. Dove, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 23, 1923.

John W. Preihs and Carl H. Preihs, for plaintiff in error; L. E. Stone, of counsel. B. E. Dowell, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
FEDERAL AVIATION 

ADMINISTRATION 

v. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

RECEIVED 

DEC 1 ~ 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

Complainant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA CASE NO. 2012WP130065 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-1080 

) 

SCHUMAN AVIATION COMPANY, LTD ) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent. 

___________________________ ) 

AGREEMENT FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF 

PURSUANT to a telephone conference on November 30, 2015, Counsel for the FAA, Enforcement 

Division, AGC-300, Casey E. Gardner and Respondent's Counsel have agreed to extend the time for filing 

a reply brief to January 15, 2016 to allow time for further negotiations. 

WHEREFORE, the Respondent, respectfully requests that the FAA Decisionmaker approve said 

extension. 

DATED: 

CHRISTOPHER D. FERRARA ~---- Attorney for Respondent
|USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS                                         |                                  | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS |                                  | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | --------------------------------
|                                                                         | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS |                                  | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
|                                                                         | USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
|Earth Surface Processes Terrain Modeling and Geographic Analysis Project
|Publications - USGS Data Series 131                                     

|Home
Projects
Publications
Links
Contact
|--------------------------------------------

|AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices                                                                                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
        URL: Enter Information
        Page Contact Information: Contact Peter G.Chirico
Page Last Modified:

---
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILLIE CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY OF ANTIOCH, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C09-01167 TEH (JCS)

ORDER TO SUBMIT SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE STATEMENTS IN .PDF

FORMAT

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in addition to the submission of paper copy of settlement

conference statements to chambers, each party shall submit their confidential settlement conference

statements in .pdf format and email their statement to JCSPO@cand.uscourts.gov.

All other provisions of this Court's original Notice and Settlement Conference Order remain

in effect.

Dated: February 8, 2010

_______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01167-TEH Document 20 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6972
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM BLOHM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-86-1184) Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Blohm, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Blohm appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Compassionate Release.” Our review of the record discloses no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT AND FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,157
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,708
<INVENTORY>                                     12,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,301
<PP&E>                                          47,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,813
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           184
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,504
<SALES>                                         77,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,123
<CGS>                                           68,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,758
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,009
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,096)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,096)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
§ 220.822 Claim computation; items included. ( a ) *Assignment of loan.* Upon an acceptable assignment of the note and security instrument, the Commissioner shall pay the claim of the lender in an amount equal to the unpaid principal balance of the loan plus: ( 1 ) Any accrued interest due as of the date of execution of the assignment of the loan to the Commissioner.
( 2 ) Any advances approved by the Commissioner made previously by the lender under the provisions of the note of security instrument or instruments.
( 3 ) Reimbursement for such reasonable collection costs, court costs, and attorney's fees as may be approved by the Commissioner.
( 4 ) Reimbursement for premiums paid on any hazard insurance policies held on the property.
( 5 ) If payment is made in cash, an amount equivalent to the debenture interest which would have been earned as of the date insurance settlement occurs, except that when the lender fails to meet any one of the applicable requirements of §§ 220.812, 220.820, and 220.821 within the specified time (or within such further time as the Commissioner may approve in writing), the debenture interest shall be computed only to the date to which the particular action should have been taken or to which it was extended.
( b ) [Reserved]
[36 FR 24573, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 80 FR 51468, Aug. 25, 2015]
## Mode of Action Analysis: 

## Organizing Questions, Tabular and Graphical Tools Ted Simon, Ph.D. DABT IRIS Bimonthly Meeting, Dec. 2013

## Questions for Organizing MOA

Consideration

• What is the MOA to be evaluated by the IPCS Human Relevance Framework and modified Bradford Hill considerations?

• Which events are truly causal or key events (KE)?



### • Which events are associative events?

• What are the modulating factors?



### • Is the proposed MOA relevant to humans?

## Questions for Considering Dose

Response

• Are extant data sufficient for establishing dose response relationships for proposed KEs?

• Are extant data sufficient for DR modeling of proposed KEs? Are there data gaps?

• Does the current understanding support a threshold or non

- threshold DR and low dose extrapolation approach?

• On either theoretical or practical grounds, is there a dose or AUC level insufficient for KEs or the AO? KE, key event; DR, dose response; AUC, area under the curve; AO, adverse outcome

## Questions for Considering the AO or

precursor KEs

• Does the weight

- of

- evidence suggest an appropriate model or approach for the dose

response assessment?

• If so, what are the key data gaps? What data would have the highest value?

## Three Proposed MOA Schemes

From Corton et al. 2013. Crit Rev Toxicol DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2013.835784

## Dose Range Array

KE #1 KE #2 KE #3 AO

## Correlation of KE with AO Incidence of Tumors (Adenomas and Carcinomas)

Incidence x Severity for Hyperplasia

## Comparison and Ordering of Dose

Response of KEs

From Corton et al. 2013. Crit Rev Toxicol DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2013.835784

## 3D Graphs in Dose and Time

From Budinsky et al. 2013. Crit Rev Toxicol DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2013.835787

## Summary

• Presenting MOA information in IRIS assessments in a credible fashion is important

• MOA is the central concept in the 2005 Cancer Guidelines

• Variety of ways to present data both in tables and in graphics

• The work of Edward Tufte may help conceiving effective data presentation methods

– The Visual Display of Quantitative Information

– Visual and Statistical Thinking: Displays of Evidence for Making Decisions