alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH HUGH JENSEN, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. ROBERT J. HERNANDEZ, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 12-16681 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00512-DAD
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 13, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: RIPPLE, ** SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Keith Hugh Jensen appeals from the district court’s order conditionally granting his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his claims of constitutional error under Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975). Jensen argues that the 

# FILED
MAY 15 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.-2- remedy ordered by the district court is insufficient to redress his constitutional injury and that the appropriate remedy is vacatur of his conviction unless the state initiates proceedings to retry him within 90 days. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. “A district court’s determinati on of the appropriate remedy for a constitutional violation on a habeas petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Uribe , 700 F.3d 413, 424 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 617 (2013). “[A] district court abuses its discretion ‘when it makes an error of law, when it rests its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact, or when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a remedy permitting the state to dismiss the senten ce-enhancing prior prison-term allegations and resentence Jensen accordingly. This remedy puts Jensen in the position he would have been had the constitu tional violation never occurred, see Chioino v. Kernan , 581 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2009), while recognizing the “considerable resources the State properly invest ed in the criminal prosecution,” Lafler v. Cooper , 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388-89 (2012). A new trial on the substantive counts is-3- unnecessary to “neutralize the taint” of the violation because Jensen was not prejudiced by the introduction of evidence concerning his prior prison terms. See id. at 1388. Similar evidence would have been introduced regardless of the enhancement allegations, because his criminal history was used for impeachment purposes. The court admonished the jury not to consider Jensen’s prior prison terms in determining his guilt on the substantive counts, and strong evidence supported the convictions. Moreover, the fa ilure to bifurcate the proceedings was not a constitutional violation in and of itself. See Spencer v. Texas , 385 U.S. 554, 568 (1967). AFFIRMED
.
#### § 53.6601-1 Interest on underpayment, nonpayment, or extensions of time for payment, of tax.

For regulations concerning interest on underpayment, nonpayment, or extensions of time for payment of tax, see § 301.6601-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration).
EXHIBIT 32.2

                         CERTIFICATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
                               BIRCH BRANCH, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Powell,
Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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), as applicable, 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.



 /s/ George A. Powell
-----------------------------------------
George A. Powell
Vice-President, Secretary and Director
May 22, 2006
#### § 1028.530 [Reserved]
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000723 30-JUN-2015 08:38 AM
Public Hearing for Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Economy Standards for 

Model Year 2017-2025 Light-duty Vehicles

Hard Copies of Testimony and Other Material Provided by Testifiers

Detroit Public Hearing

January 17, 2012

Docket Attachment 1: Hard copies of testimony provided by testifiers to EPA/NHTSA panel

Name Affiliation Page 

John Dingell U.S. Representative 1

Susan M. Cischke Ford Motor Company 2

John Juriga Kia Motors 8

Don Chalmers National Automobile Dealers Association 10

Doug Richman Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group 14

Karyn Schmidt American Chemistry Council 19

Dr. Andrew Brown Jr. Delphi Corporation 23

Dr. James Jacobs Macomb Community Collge 27

Jonathan Tobias Small Business Majority/Michigan Green Cabs 31

Rhett Buttle Small Business Majority 34

Danny Pelissier UAW local 163 36

Kerry Ebersole Pew Environment Group 38

Charles Morris St. Christopher Parish 40

Bruce Brenda Bayer Material Science 42

John German International Council on Clean Transportation 46

Ronald P. Krupitzer American Iron and Steel Institute 52

Ralph McKee Citizen 57

Docket Attachment 2: Submitted by Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group - Survey 

of North American Automotive Materials, conducted by Ducker Worldwide

Docket Attachment 3: Submitted by Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group –

Survey of Trends in Automotive Materials, conducted by DuPont

Docket Attachment 4: Submitted by Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group –

Statement made by Honda at the recent International Automotive Body Congress (Wards Auto)

Docket Attachment 5: Submitted by Aluminum Association’s Aluminum Transportation Group –

Automotive Materials Life Cycle Cost Analysis, commissioned by the European Union, titled “Support 

for the Revisions of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 on CO2 Emissions from Cars”

Docket Attachment 6: Submitted by Jobs with Justice - About Jobs with Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 145 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 145

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 1996

Mr. Obey introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That section 106(c) of Public 
Law 104-56 is amended by striking ``December 15, 1995'' and inserting 
``April 30, 1996''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 211.3 Exceptions.

The regulations of this part do not apply to payments to foreign governments, nor to checks or warrants issued in payment of salaries or wages, or for goods or services purchased by the Government of the United States in foreign countries, unless such payments are subject to the Foreign Funds Control Regulations (31 CFR part 520), the Foreign Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR part 500), the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR part 515), or the Iranian Assets Control Regulations (31 CFR part 535).

[45 FR 47678, July 16, 1980]
# L_2019303EN.01003701.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 303/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 303/37

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1715 of 30 September 2019 laying down rules for the functioning of the information management system for official controls and its system components (the IMSOC Regulation)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 261 of 14 October 2019
  )

Pages 87-93 are replaced with the following:

Section C

Section C

CHED-PP

CHED-PP

(for plants, plant products and other objects referred to point (c) of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625)

(for plants, plant products and other objects referred to point (c) of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625)

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Section D

Section D

CHED-D

CHED-D

(for feed and food of non-animal origin referred to in point (d) of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625)

(for feed and food of non-animal origin referred to in point (d) of Article 47(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/625)

Image 4

Image 5

Image 6

Image 7

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1258 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1258

 To amend the Small Business Act to increase the guarantee fee charged 
by the Small Business Administration on general business loans, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 1995

  Mr. Flake introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Small Business Act to increase the guarantee fee charged 
by the Small Business Administration on general business loans, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Capital Access Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. LENDER PAID FEES.

    The first sentence of section 5(g)(4)(A) of the Small Business Act 
(15 U.S.C. 634(g)(4)(A)) is amended to read as follows: ``The 
Administration may collect the following fees: (i) for loan guarantees 
made pursuant to section 7(a), an amount equal to not more than \4/10\ 
of one percent per year of the outstanding principal amount of the 
portion of such loan guaranteed by the Administration, and (ii) for 
loan guarantees sold into the secondary market pursuant to subsection 
(f) of this section, an amount equal to not more than 50 percent of the 
portion of the sale price which is in excess of 110 percent of the 
outstanding principal amount of any portion of such loan guaranteed by 
the Administration.''.

SEC. 3. GUARANTEE FEES.

    Section 7(a)(18) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(18)) 
is amended by striking ``a guarantee fee equal to two percent of the 
amount of the deferred participation share of any loan under this 
subsection'' and inserting ``a guarantee fee equal to two percent of 
the gross amount of any loan guaranteed under this subsection''.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 306.77 Corepresentatives and fiduciaries.

If there are two or more executors, administrators, guardians or similar representatives, or trustees of an estate, all must unite in the assignment of any securities belonging to the estate. However, when a statute, a decree of court, or the instrument under which the representatives or fiduciaries are acting provides otherwise, assignments in accordance with their authority will be accepted. If the securities have matured or been called and are submitted for redemption for the account of all, or for redemption-exchange or pursuant to an advance refunding or prerefunding offer, and the securities offered in exchange are to be registered in the names of all, no assignment is required.
§ 41.6060-1 Reporting requirements for tax return preparers. ( a ) *In general.* A person that employs one or more tax return preparers to prepare a return or claim for refund of excise tax under section 4481, other than for the person, at any time during a return period, shall satisfy the record keeping and inspection requirements in the manner stated in § 1.6060-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable for returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78455, Dec. 22, 2008]
§ 1010.914 Service of summons. ( a ) *Who may serve.* Any delegate of the Secretary authorized under § 1010.912 of this chapter to issue a summons, or any other person authorized by law to serve summonses or other process, is hereby authorized to serve a summons issued under this chapter.
( b ) *Manner of service.* Service of a summons may be made— ( 1 ) Upon any person, by registered mail, return receipt requested, directed to the person summoned;
( 2 ) Upon a natural person by personal delivery; or
( 3 ) Upon any other person by delivery to an officer, managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized to receive service of process.
( c ) *Certificate of service.* The summons shall contain a certificate of service to be signed by the server of the summons. On the hearing of an application for enforcement of the summons, the certificate of service signed by the person serving the summons shall be evidence of the facts it states.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1273

To amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 relating to the payment of wages

to employees who use employer owned vehicles.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 21, 1995

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

A BILL

To amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 relating to the

payment of wages to employees who use employer owned

vehicles.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROPER COMPENSATION FOR USE OF EM4 PLOYER VEHICLES.

5 Section 4(a) of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 (29

6 U.S.C. 254(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end

7 of paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of para8 graph (2) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, and by adding at the

9 end the following:
2

•HR 1273 IH

1 ‘‘(3) voluntary use of employer owned vehicles

2 for traveling (for a distance not greater than 30

3 miles) to the actual place of performance of the first

4 principal activity which such employee is employed

5 to perform.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 15



September 14, 1998

The Caldor Corporation
Norwalk, Connecticut

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of The Caldor Corporation (Debtor-In-Possession) and subsidiaries
("Caldor") for the periods ended August 1, 1998 and August 2, 1997, as indicated
in our report dated September 14, 1998 which includes explanatory paragraphs
relating to the Company's reorganization proceedings and its ability to continue
as a going concern; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on the information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 1, 1998, is
incorporated by reference in a) Registration Statement No. 33-44996 of Caldor on
Form S-8, b) Registration Statement No. 33-41321 of Caldor on Form S-8, c)
Registration Statement No. 33-51510 of Caldor on Form S-8, d) Registration
Statement No. 33-67438 of Caldor on Form S-8 and e) Registration Statement No.
33-84526 of Caldor on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of that Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP



New York, New York
mmex_ex107.htm


EXHIBIT 10.7


 


 





 




  





1











  






 






 




  





2











  








 






 




  





3











  








 






 




  





4











  








 





 




  





5











  






 






 




  





6











  








 






 




  





7











  








 






 




  





8











  








 






 


9
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Pacific Northwest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of the meeting is to review and provide recommendations on recreation fee proposals for facilities and services offered on lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in Oregon and Washington, under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on January 30, 2009, from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. A public input session will be provided at 10:30 a.m. on January 30, 2009. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be at the Residence Inn by Marriott, Lloyd Center, 1710 NE Multnomah St., Portland, Oregon 97232. Send written comments to Dan Harkenrider, Designated Federal Official for the Pacific Northwest Recreation RAC, 902 Wasco Street, Suite 200, Hood River, OR 97031,                         *dharkenrider@fs.fed.us,*                         or 541-308-1700.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dan Harkenrider, Designated Federal Official, 541-308-1700. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Recreation RAC discussion is limited to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management staff and Recreation RAC members. However, persons who wish to bring recreation fee matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. A public input session will be provided and individuals who have made written requests by January 25, 2009, to the Designated Federal Official will have the opportunity to address the Committee during the meeting on January 30, 2009, at 10:30 a.m. 

The Recreation RAC is authorized by the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in December 2004. 

Dated: January 5, 2009. 

Mary Wagner, 

Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region.

 [FR Doc. E9-199 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### Henry Papineau *vs.*James L. Hefflon et al.

Maltbie, C. J., Haines, Hinman, Banks and Avert, Js.

Argued February 6th

decided March 6th, 1934.

*Foster K. Sistare*and *Perry J. Hollandersky,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*John C. Blackall,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The assignments of error seek, by correction of the finding, to overthrow conclusions by which the additional defendant, The Saybrook Garage, Inc., was relieved from liability. It is found that the defendant Hefflon, at the time when the car driven by him struck and injured the plaintiff, was operating it under an agreement with the Garage to purchase it provided, upon test, he was satisfied, but that he might return it if it proved unsatisfactory. Under such conditions the Garage would not be liable for negligence of Hefflon as there was no claim that he was accompanied by and acting under the supervision and control of any agent or employee of the Garage. *Marshall*v. *Fenton,*107 Conn. 728, 142 Atl. 403; *Murphy*
      *689v. *Mace,*112 Conn. 684, 152 Atl. 582. The appellant’s attempt to substitute a finding that the Garage rented the automobile to Iieffion and therefore became liable for negligent operation by him, under § 1627 of the General Statutes *(Levy*v. *Daniel’s U-Drive Auto Renting Co., Inc.,*108 Conn. 333, 143 Atl. 163), has scant substantiation in the evidence, while the finding made on this point is adequately supported. Consequently the desired correction cannot be made.

The further conclusion, that the defective condition of the brakes was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, depends upon the finding as to the speed at which the car was traveling, the distance before striking the plaintiff that HefHon applied the brakes, and the distance within which a car traveling at a speed of twenty miles per hour would stop after the application of brakes in normal working order. The evidence relating to these facts is in some respects conflicting, but includes testimony which it was open to the trial court to believe and which, if credited, affords such support for the facts found as to preclude correction on appeal. Upon the facts found, the trial court might reasonably conclude that the accident would have happened even had the brakes not been defective and that, therefore, this defect was not a proximate cause of the accident. *Shaughnessy*v. *Morrison,*116 Conn. 661, 666, 165 Atl. 553.

The record is unjustifiably voluminous because of the printing of all of the evidence, only a relatively small portion of which is relevant to the corrections claimed.

There is no error.