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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1903

BARBARA S. MINNICH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN M. DEUTCH, Director, Central Intelligence

Agency,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2152

BARBARA S. MINNICH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN M. DEUTCH, Director, Central Intelligence

Agency,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2153

BARBARA S. MINNICH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
2
3

versus

JOHN M. DEUTCH, Director, Central Intelligence

Agency,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-96-266-A, CA-96-664-A)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 2, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barbara S. Minnich, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief in her actions against the

Central Intelligence Agency. We have reviewed the records and the

district court's opinions and find no reversible error.

In Appeal No. 96-1903, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Minnich v. Deutch, No. CA-96-266-A (E.D. Va. May 24,

1996). In Appeal Nos. 96-2152 and 96-2153, the district court

denied relief for the reasons stated from the bench. Appellant

failed to provide a transcript of the hearing at which the district

court stated the reasons for denying relief. See Fed. R. App. P.

10(b)(2); Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992). Moreover, Appellant has failed to state a substantial claim justifying

preparation of a transcript at government expense. 28 U.S.C. §

753(f) (1994). Consequently, in Nos. 96-2152 and 96-2153, 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
[810 NYS2d 690]

#### In the Matter of Douglas Almon Fisher, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Seventh Judicial District, Petitioner. Appellant

Fourth Department,

March 17, 2006

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Daniel A. Drake, Principal Counsel, Seventh Judicial District Grievance Committee,*Rochester, for petitioner.

*Gerard M. La Russo,*Rochester, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by the Appel*72late Division, Third Department, on December 2, 1993, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Fishers. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct arising from his misuse of a trust account. Respondent filed an answer admitting the material allegations of the petition and appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

Respondent admitted that he used as a personal account an account that was designated as a trust account and that he failed to use the account for client funds. Additionally, respondent admitted that he issued checks drawn against the account that were dishonored for insufficient funds.

By depositing funds other than “qualified funds” within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 497 (2) into a trust account, respondent has violated Judiciary Law § 497, and he has engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]).

We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that the misconduct was unrelated to clients or clients’ funds. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be censured.

Scudder, J.P., Gorski, Green, Pine and Hayes, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.
§ 13.19 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) The ALJ may schedule prehearing conferences as appropriate.
( b ) Upon the motion of any party, the ALJ shall schedule at least one prehearing conference at a reasonable time in advance of the hearing.
( c ) The ALJ may use prehearing conferences to discuss the following: ( 1 ) Simplification of the issues;
( 2 ) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings, including the need for a more definite statement;
( 3 ) Stipulations and admissions of fact or as to the contents and authenticity of documents;
( 4 ) Whether the parties can agree to submission of the case on a stipulated record;
( 5 ) Whether a party chooses to waive appearance at an oral hearing and to submit only documentary evidence (subject to the objection of other parties) and written argument;
( 6 ) Limitation of the number of witnesses;
( 7 ) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists and of proposed exhibits;
( 8 ) Discovery;
( 9 ) The time and place for the hearing; and
( 10 ) Such other matters as may tend to expedite the fair and just disposition of the proceedings.
( d ) The ALJ may issue an order containing all matters agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the ALJ at a prehearing conference.
#### § 1015.104 Compromise, waiver, or disposition under other statutes not precluded.

Nothing in this part precludes DOE from disposing of any claim under statutes and implementing regulations other than subchapter II of chapter 37 of Title 31 of the United States Code (Claims of the United States Government) and the standards in this part. In such cases, the specifically applicable laws and regulations will generally take precedence over this part.
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 13-13-00190-CR OFFENSE: 19.02

ALBERT RODRIGUEZ MEDELLIN v.

STYLE: the state of texas COUNTY: Comal

H%H-t$

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 207th District Court

DATE: 4/2/15 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR-2011-196

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ALBERT RODRIGUEZ MEDELLIN v.

STYLE: THE STATE OF TEXAS cca#: *rQHm/5

AP?ELL/\!\17-'>S, Petition CCA DisDOsition:

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE:

TgftSzD JUDGE:

DATE: W/M/MX

JUDGE: j^M UMMLrC

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

>

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TERRIAL HARRIS, a/k/a Terry,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (3:07-cr-00419-RLW-1; 3:09-cv-00289-RLW)

Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 30, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrial Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrial Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 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 motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41398 Summary Calendar

JAY TODD NEESE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:95-CV-6

- - - - - - - - - - January 27, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The respondent moves to supplement the state court record with certified copies of the state habeas petition and its supplement. IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Jay Todd Neese, Texas inmate #349086, appeals the denial of his federal habeas petition. He argues that the prosecution breached the plea agreement in cause no. A-11,404 and that the district court erred in according a presumption of correctness to the state court findings of fact in denying his breached-plea-No. 97-41398 -2- agreement claim. The state trial court’s findings are supported by the record. See Self v. Collins , 973 F.2d 1198, 1214 (5th Cir. 1992). Neese fails to identify anything in the record which indicates that the hearing was either unfair or failed to comply with due process. The district court’s determination of the breached-plea-agreement issue, based upon the presumption of correctness accorded the state-court findings, was not erroneous.
See Self v. Blackburn , 751 F.2d 789, 792-93 (5th Cir. 1985). Neese argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance on appeal and that the district court erred in applying a procedural bar to one aspect of his ineffective-assistance claim. Even assuming that the district court erred in applying the procedural bar, Neese cannot show that counsel’s performance was beyond the broad range of reasonable performance. See Bryant v. Scott , 28 F.3d 1411, 1414 (5th Cir. 1994).
MOTION GRANTED. AFFIRMED.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.41





CAPELLA EDUCATION COMPANY
AMENDMENT TO
LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE CASH PLAN AWARD AGREEMENT(S)




This Amendment to Long-Term Performance Cash Plan Award Agreement(s) amends any and all outstanding 2016-2018 and 2017-2019 Long-Term Performance Cash Plan Award Agreements (the “Awards”) held by Participants under the Capella Education Company 2014 Equity Incentive Plan to the extent set forth below.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Awards.  


1.Amendment.  The Awards define Change in Control to have the definition assigned to such term in the Company’s Senior Executive Severance Plan.  That definition is hereby amended to provide that a Change in Control that would occur pursuant to clause (3) of that definition (e.g., approval by the stockholders of CEC of certain reorganizations, mergers or consolidations of CEC or a statutory exchange of outstanding Voting Securities of CEC) shall only occur if and when the reorganization, merger, consolidation or statutory share exchange contemplated by that clause is consummated.  
2.    Amendment Limited.  This Amendment shall not amend or modify the terms of the Awards, except to the extent expressly set forth above, which Awards, as amended hereby, shall remain in full force and effect.  
3.    Counterparts.  This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which together shall constitute the same instrument.


This Amendment shall be effective with respect to Awards held by a Participant when signed by the Participant.  




CAPELLA EDUCATION COMPANY




__________________________________________                        
Name:
Title:  




PARTICIPANT




__________________________________________                        
Name:
Date:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

COURTNEY O. GATHERS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:20cv587-MW/ZCB

SECRETARY, FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 19. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation, ECF No. 19, is accepted and adopted as 

this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s claims are 

DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.” The Clerk shall close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 22, 2023.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00587-MW-ZCB Document 51 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 1
#### § 917.19 Selection of members of the Control Committee.

From the nominations made pursuant to § 917.17, or from other persons, the Secretary shall select the shipper members of the Control Committee. From the nominations made pursuant to § 917.18, or from other persons, the Secretary shall select the commodity committee members of the Control Committee. Any person selected as member of the Control Committee shall qualify by filing with the Secretary a written acceptance of the appointment.

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 76 FR 66605, Oct. 27, 2011, § 917.19 was suspended indefinitely, effective Oct. 28, 2011.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3254 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3254

To suspend temporarily the duty on parts for use in the manufacture of 
                 certain high-performance loudspeakers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

  Mr. Alexander (for himself and Mr. Frist) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on parts for use in the manufacture of 
                 certain high-performance loudspeakers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PARTS FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CERTAIN HIGH-PERFORMANCE 
              LOUDSPEAKERS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.18        Parts for use in the    Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           manufacture of                                                    31/2009          ''
                           loudspeakers that,                                                                  .
                           when not mounted in
                           their enclosures,
                           meet a performance
                           standard of not more
                           than 1.5 dB for the
                           average level of 3 or
                           more octave bands,
                           when such
                           loudspeakers are
                           tested in a
                           reverberant chamber
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           8518.90.80)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0827. FENG v. THE STATE.

This Court granted an application for discretionary appeal filed by Shaw Feng,

challenging the trial court’s revocation of his probation. After thorough consideration

of this case, including a review of the relevant law and the entire appellate record, we

have determined that the law and evidence authorized the findings and conclusions

made in support of the trial court’s decision. Accordingly, the application for

discretionary appeal having been improvidently granted, this appeal is dismissed.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

July 06, 2021

07/06/2021
#### § 986.41 Varieties.

*Varieties* mean and include all cultivars, classifications, or subdivisions of pecans.
#### § 1013.36 Post-hearing briefs.

The ALJ may require the parties to file post-hearing briefs. In any event, any party may file a post-hearing brief. The ALJ shall fix the time for filing such briefs, not to exceed 60 days from the date the parties receive the transcript of the hearing or, if applicable, the stipulated record. Such briefs may be accompanied by proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ may permit the parties to file reply briefs.
LANCE R. LEFLEUR 

DIRECTOR 

Birmingham Branch 

October 26, 2015 

ADEM 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

adem.alabama.gov 

1400 Coliseum Blvd. 36110-2400 • Post Office Box 301463 

Montgomery, Alabama 36130-1463 

(334) 271-7700 • FAX (334) 271-7950 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7108 2133 3936 7223 3214 

Mrs. Heather McTeer Toney 

Regional Administrator 

EPA Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Dear Mrs. Toney: 

ROBERT J. BENTLEY 

GOVERNOR 

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management formally submits for your 

approval, final revisions to the Department's regulations. These regulations were the 

subject of a public hearing held on September 9, 2015, and were adopted by the 

Environmental Management Commission on October 16, 2015. The effective date of 

these regulations is November 24, 2015. 

Revisions to the Division 3 Code were made to incorporate by reference changes to the 

EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) in Chapter 335-3-10, National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) in Chapter 335-3-11, 

and Consolidated Federal Air Rule (CAR) in Chapter 335-3-1 lA. Additional changes 

included revisions to the definition of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Chapter 

335-3-1 to be consistent with EPA's revisions, and new regulations in Chapters 335-3-5 

and 335-3-8 to implement EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Also, 

Alabama's Regional Haze SIP was revised to replace reliance on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) with reliance on CSAPR. 

Revisions to Chapters 335-3-1, 335-3-5, and 335-3-8 are to be incorporated into 

Alabama's SIP. Chapters 335-3-10 (NSPS), 335-3-11 (NESHAPs), 335-3-1 lA (CAR) 

are not considered part of the SIP. As such, revisions to these Chapters are not to be 

incorporated into Alabama's SIP. 

Decatur Branch Mobile Branch Mobile-Coastal 

110 Vulcan Road 

Birmingham, AL 35209-4702 

(205) 942-6168 

2715 Sandlin Road, S.W. 

Decatur, AL 35603-1333 

(256) 353-1713 

2204 Perimeter Road 

Mobile, AL 36615-1131 

(251) 450-3400 

3664 Dauphin Street. Suite B 

Mobile, AL 36608 

(251) 304-1176 

(205) 941-1603 (FAX) (256) 340-9359 (FAX) (251) 479-2593 (FAX) (251) 304-1189 (FAX) 
Ms. Heather M. Toney 2 October 26, 2015 

An exact duplicate of the information provided in this submittal is provided in the 

enclosed CD. If you need additional information concerning this submittal, please call 

Larry Brown of my staff at (334) 271-7878. 

Sincerely, 

Lance R. Lefleur 

Director 

RWG/LB:bdc 

Enclosures 

cc: Scott Davis 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7108 2133 3936 7223 3207 

Gregg Worley 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7108 2133 3936 7223 3191 

Lynorae Benjamin 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7108 2133 3936 7223 3184 

Beverly Banister 

Danny Shea 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7108 2133 3936 7223 3177 

Dr. Mark Wilson 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7108 2133 3936 7223 3160 

Corey Masuca 

File: P-8-156
Subpart 603.1—Safeguards       Source:                               64 FR 43620, Aug. 11, 1999, unless otherwise noted.    **Parent topic:** PART 603—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST603.104 Procurement integrity.603.104-4 Disclosure, protection, and marking of contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information.       (a) The following classes of persons may be authorized to receive contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information by the contracting officer or head of the contracting activity, when such access is necessary to the conduct of an acquisition:          (1) Individuals involved in the selection process, such as the Contracting Officer's Representative, technical evaluators, advisors, consultants, and the Source Selection Official;          (2) Clerical personnel directly involved in the acquisition;          (3) Supervisors in the contracting officer's chain of command;          (4) Contracting personnel involved in reviewing or approving the solicitation, contract, or contract modification;          (5) Individuals from offices who may be required to perform pre-award audits, such as DCAA; and,          (6) Personnel in the following offices: Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), Office of the Legal Adviser, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Inspector General, Office of the Procurement Executive, the Small Business Administration, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (Department of Labor).          (c) All information which is considered proprietary or source selection information shall be marked to prevent its unauthorized disclosure before award. This may be performed by marking each page of proprietary or source selection material with the statement “Source Selection Information—See FAR 3.104” or “Proprietary Information—See FAR 3.104”, as applicable. Alternatively, this requirement may be met by attaching Forms DS–1926, Proprietary Information (Cover Page), and DS–1927, Source Selection Information (Cover Page), to any proprietary and source selection information. Individuals responsible for preparing derivative documents which reference, cite, or paraphrase proprietary or source selection information, are responsible for marking such documents as indicated in this paragraph. The required marking or cover page shall be included when technical proposals are submitted for evaluation and when an audit is requested. After award, the procedures governing the Freedom of Information Act and related laws/regulations shall be followed regarding release of proprietary or source selection information.603.104-7 Violations or possible violations.       (a)          (1)  			The contracting officer shall report any violation or possible violation to the head of the contracting activity after he or she has reviewed the documentation and has concluded that there is no impact on the acquisition.          (d)(2)(ii)(B) The Procurement Executive is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 3.104–7(d)(2)(ii)(B).