alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### MAR 18 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. MICHAEL JEFFREY MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 98-5165 (N. District of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. 92-CR-60-B)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , McKAY, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T his court, therefore, honors the parties’ requests and orders the case submitted without oral argument.-2-

Michael J. Morris appeals from the district court’s imposition of a sixmonth term of incarceration followed by eighteen mo nths of supervised release following the revocation of Morris’s previous term of supervised release. Morris contends that because his previous term of supervis ed release was imposed in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, he cannot be punished for violating the terms of the release. This court exercises jurisdi ction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms
. This court rejected a claim that is, in all materia l respects, identical to Morris’ claim in United States v. Wash , No. 95-4156, 1996 WL 536563, at *1-*2 (10 thCir. Sept. 23, 1996) (unpublished disposition). M orris notes that because Wash is an unpublished disposition, it is not binding o n this panel. See 10 thCir. R. 36.3(A). Even though Wash is not binding, however, we find it persuasive and adopt its reasoning to resolve Morris’ appeal. Although Wash fully resolves Morris’ claim of error, this court notes parenthetically that each circuit that had interpre ted 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) to permit imposition of both a term of imprisonment and an additional term of supervised release has since held that the application of 18 U .S.C. § 3583(h) to crimes committed before its passage does not violate the E x Post Facto Clause. See United States v. St. John , 92 F.3d 761, 767 (8 thCir. 1996); United States v. Sandoval , No. 95-1326, 1995 WL 656488, at *1 (1 stCir. Nov. 7, 1995)-3-

(unpublished disposition); see also United States v. Lominac , 144 F.3d 308, 314 n.7 (4 thCir. 1998) (distinguishing Wash , St. John , and Sandovalon that ground that “[i]n circuits that had previously interpreted § 3583(e) to authorize both imprisonment and supervised release, § 3583(h) did not change prior law and hence could not disadvantage defendants in violatio n of the Ex Post Facto Clause”). The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Oklahoma is hereby AFFIRMED
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3134

JOSEPH P. CARSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

and

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

Intervenor.

Joseph P. Carson , of Knoxville, Tennessee, pro se.

Jeffrey A. Gauger , Acting Associate General Coun sel, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit Systems Prot ection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on the brief were B. Chad Bungard , General Counsel, and Rosa M. Koppel , Deputy General Counsel.

Roger A. Hipp , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigat ion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, for in tervenor. With him on the brief

were Peter D. Keisler , Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Todd M. Hughes , Deputy Direc tor.

David B. Nolan , of Alexandria, Virginia, for amici curiae, P. Jeffrey Black, et al.

Appealed from: United States Me rit Systems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-3134

JOSEPH P. CARSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

and

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

Intervenor.



# Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Merit Systems Protection Board

In CASE NO(S). AT1221061125-W-1

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (RADER, Circuit Judge , PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge and MOORE, Circuit Judge ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.



### ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: November 9, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

### Jan Horbaly, Clerk
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

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

###### Editorial Note on Part 353

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 353 appear at 79 FR 8859, Feb. 14, 2014.

#### § 353.41 Partial redemption.

A bond of Series EE or HH may be redeemed in part at current redemption value, but only in amounts corresponding to authorized denominations, upon surrender of the bond to a designated Federal Reserve Bank or Branch or to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service in accordance with § 353.39(b). In any case in which partial redemption is requested, the phrase “to the extent of $__ (face amount) and reissue of the remainder” should be added to the request. Upon partial redemption of the bond, the remainder will be reissued as of the original issue date, as provided in subpart I.

[44 FR 76441, Dec. 26, 1979, as amended at 59 FR 10541, Mar. 4, 1994]
#### § 23.17 Special benefits for children and the elderly.

If a recipient's operation of a program or activity provides special benefits to the elderly or to children, such use of age distinctions shall be presumed to be necessary to the normal operation of the program or activity, notwithstanding the provisions of § 23.13.
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 17-3700

______

TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC

v.

PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR 7.053 ACRES, 

PERMANENT OVERLAY EASEMENT

FOR 1.709 ACRES AND TEMPORARY 

EASEMENTS FOR 8.551 ACRES IN MILFORD 

AND WESTFALL TOWNSHIPS, PIKE COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA, TAX PARCEL NUMBERS; 

KING ARTHUR ESTATES, A Limited Partnership; 

RIOTHAMUS CORP, General Partner of King Estates 

c/o Ernest Bertuzzi President; ALL UNKNOWN OWNERS 

AND INTERESTED PARTIES

King Arthur Estates, L.P. and Riothamus Corporation, 

Appellants

______________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE 

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. No. 3-12-cv-01477)

District Judge: Hon. A. Richard Caputo

______________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

______________

It appears that certain references to the majority contained within the dissenting opinion 

did not identify the correct page number. Accordingly, the dissenting opinion is amended 

as follows:

Page 4, footnote 2, change “Maj. Op. 21” to “Maj. Op. 21-22”;
Page 7, first full paragraph, fifth line, change “Maj. Op. 17-18” to “Maj. Op. 18”;

Page 7, footnote 4, change “Maj. Op. 19-21” to “Maj. Op. 20-21”; and,

Page 8, second line, change “Maj. Op. 18” to “Maj. Op. 19”.

For the Court,

s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit

Clerk

Date: July 25, 2019

cc: Albert F. Moran, Esq.

Patrick F. Nugent, Esq.

Sean T. O'Neill, Esq.

John F. Stoviak, Esq.

Elizabeth U. Witmer, Esq.
Montana Claims Service ofMt1es City, Inc. 

P.O. Box 369 • Miles City, MT 59301 

(406)232-0306 •F AX: (406)232-0307 • EMAIL: mcsmc@midrivers.com 

Multi-line Adjusters for tlte State of Montana and Northern Wyoming 

April 11, 2013 

Docket Operations M-30 

West Building Ground Floor W 12-140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590;3 

United States of America 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Secretary 

Washington DC 

RE: Docket DOS-OST-1997-2605 

As a small business owner and member of the Miles City Airport Commission, I would strongly support the 

continuation of Essential Air Service for Miles City, Montana. This service is essential for our area as it 

provides the necessary connection to other airlines and services required by citizens from all of southeastern 

Montana. 

The EAS provides safe travel for people who ate unable to drive; especially in hazardous winter conditions 

which often occur in our area. EAS also provides transportation to Billings, Montana for our elderly, disabled 

veterans, and others seeking medical treatment from specialists, as Billings is the medical hub for all of eastern 

Montana. 

With the newly discovered oil in the Bakken formation of western North Dakota and eastern Montana along 

with the proposed Otter Creek coal development south of Miles City, we are becoming even more dependent on 

EAS to support Miles City in our role as the business hub of eastern Montana. It is absolutely essential we have 

reliable business air transportation available for our community. 

Furthermore, Miles City is a link between the other Montana cities receiving EAS. The loss of any one 

community in this link affects air service to all of the other cities in Montana. 

Essential Air Service also provides a number of jobs in our area. People within the system from passengers, 

airline pilots and staff, TSA employees and others support local motels and restaurants as well as numerous 

other businesses. 

With the recent change in the law, the area of eastern Montana served by EAS at Miles City has not had time to 

address the impending loss of air service. I urge you to not enforce the Show Cause Order contained in Docket 

DOS-OST -1997-2605 and allow the Montana Essential Air Task Force and the people of eastern Montana time '\ 

www .montanaclaimsservice.com 

Office locations: Billings, Bozeman, Great Falls, Helena, Kalispell, Miles City and Missoula 
to develop a workable solution to increase usage of the airline service across our area. Continuation of the EAS 

at Miles City should be allowed for at least the next two year period to give us time to complete our plan to 

increase usage of the Miles City facility. Thank you for your cooperation in helping us maintain our EAS 

connection with other Montana cities. 

Sincerely, 

Lee Richardson
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 1494-348-OK]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Grand River Dam Authority's proposed shoreline management plan (SMP) for the Pensacola Hydroelectric Project, located on the Grand River in Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma, and has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the SMP.

                    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at                    *http://www.ferc.gov*                     using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number (P-1494) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.                

Any comments on the EA should be filed by September 14, 2009, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the project name and project number (P-1494-348) on all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “eFiling” link. For further information, contact Brian Romanek at (202) 502-6175.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-20235 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[iar digmapeiiinaies Nestine died ateenetemioie)
PMC, Kath pmeny neg (open! bem A hime peas ses bs me wom oN
aA etl Henan npn (90 heen Pon Bhan ey te
© aoe iad 0 Oe Gow ol Re nears ni A uo a tad maaan Armagh esas
aa rem te rte tee eg eg eee Sh cea pe al
are

ene senate ey se peated megees ene ye Hh Hemme
Serra Ptry lew sndtara best @ WAM Gane Lenmar Sand DtNeact Rrmewem fee
fm S comerreet er ts one oot war ba Sete bay gems be nk pone
oe ED Ree ene Sager Stews ae Nae te Sees
peti

Verona Torreceras cone Peete ond Gish Lee 1h 0D ee ess see
Nem emcee tae batt

BATHYMETRIC MAP

haenibed of Wasteypen, OC
US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WATER OCFAMC ArdD AIMOSPHERIE ADWEETAATION
SoAPORAL Octane srEICE
mn

AAPeTennTON® Cement eal. 2 METTIS 7D MAHL DID

Gate nA LET Le TE

RESEARCHER BASIN
(N270090W)
BATHYMETRIC MAP UA143
#### § 501.717 Consolidation of proceedings.

By order of the Administrative Law Judge, proceedings involving common questions of law and fact may be consolidated for hearing of any or all the matters at issue in such proceedings. The Administrative Law Judge may make such orders concerning the conduct of such proceedings as he or she deems appropriate to avoid unnecessary cost or delay. Consolidation shall not prejudice any rights under this subpart and shall not affect the right of any party to raise issues that could have been raised if consolidation had not occurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          188644                  188644
<SECURITIES>                                   2300000                 2300000
<RECEIVABLES>                                     8577                    8577
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                       5552                    5552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2792116                 2792116
<PP&E>                                         1671260                 1671260
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1046328)               (1046328)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3455527                 3455527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           605041                  605041
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    2667404                 2667404
<COMMON>                                      22870132                22870132
<OTHER-SE>                                  (22838290)              (22838290)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3455527                 3455527
<SALES>                                          27840                   61744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                160501                  549139
<CGS>                                             5380                   23301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11630                   52051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1299661                 3705800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3074                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1268447)               (3570281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1268447)               (3570281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1268447)               (3570281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)                  (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)                  (0.39)
        

</TABLE>
40305.

#### STOCKTON v. TURNER.

Erankum, Judge.

1. Where, in a suit on a promissory note, the defendant filed a cross action against the plaintiff on an account in an amount greater than the amount of the note and prayed for a setoff and a judgment against the plaintiff for the excess, the court did not err in repelling evidence *874offered by the plaintiff concerning reasons, not germane to any issue in the case, for the nonpayment of the note.

Decided January 7, 1964

Rehearing denied January 23, 1964.

*Scott Walters, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Augustine Sams, Marion A. Sams, Edward S. Sams,*contra.

2. Where, in such a case, the defendant’s counterclaim against the plaintiff included certain items of personal property alleged to have been sold to, and certain services alleged to have been performed for the plaintiff, and where the - defendant made no motion seeking to require the plaintiff to plead in replication, *Code*§§ 81-309 and 81-311, *McLaren v. Birdsong & Sledge,*24 Ga. 265 (2), *Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Tankersley,*133 Ga. 153 (2) (65 SE 367), *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hale,*47 Ga. App. 674 (2) (171 SE 306), it was competent for the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant’s cross action to introduce any relevant evidence which was material and which tended in any way to illustrate the issue as to the plaintiff’s liability to the defendant for the items sued for in the cross action. *Ga. Sav. Bank &c. Co. v. Marshall,*207 Ga. 314 (61 SE2d 469); *Smith v. Hodges,*8 Ga. App. 785 (2) (70 SE 195); *International Harvester Co. v. Morgan,*19 Ga. App. 716 (92 SE 35); *Herrington v. Herrington,*70 Ga. App. 768 (3) (29 SE2d 516); *Harmon v. Givens,*88 Ga. App. 629, 632 (1) (77 SE2d 223).

3. It was competent for the plaintiff under such circumstances to introduce evidence that the items of property and services furnished as alleged in the cross action were furnished by the defendant to a corporation and not to the plaintiff individually, and that the corporation had paid for the goods and services alleged to have been furnished. Such evidence was relevant and material and tended to illustrate the issue between the parties, i.e., the liability of the plaintiff on the cross action, and it was improperly excluded. See *Kutzchan v. State,*68 Ga. App. 121 (1) (22 SE2d 410); *Bell v. State,*72 Ga. App. 848 (35 SE2d 383); *Miller Service, Inc. v. Miller,*76 Ga. App. 143, 151 (3) (45 SE2d 466). The trial court erred in overruling special grounds 2, 3, and 4 of the motion for a new trial complaining of the exclusion of this evidence.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PETE'S
BREWING COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AS
SHOWN IN THE 10-Q FILING AND IS QUALIFIED BY ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,102
<SECURITIES>                                    17,160
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                       151
<INVENTORY>                                      4,715
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,563
<PP&E>                                           4,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,569
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,653
<OTHER-SE>                                          39
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,489
<SALES>                                         30,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,381
<CGS>                                           15,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,080
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,037)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,316)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,721)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        

</TABLE>
§ 16.6 Prerequisites for issuing a complaint. ( a ) The reviewing official may issue a complaint under § 16.7 only if— ( 1 ) The Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in a written statement described in 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(l), and
( 2 ) In the case of allegations of liability under § 16.3(a) with respect to a claim, the reviewing official determines that, with respect to such claim or a group of related claims submitted at the same time such claim is submitted (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section), the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested in violation of § 16.3(a) does not exceed $150,000.
( b ) For the purposes of this section, a related group of claims submitted at the same time shall include only those claims arising from the same transaction (e.g., grant, loan, application, or contract) that are submitted simultaneously as part of a single request, demand, or submission.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the reviewing official's authority to join in a single complaint against a person, claims that are unrelated or were not submitted simultaneously, regardless of the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested, as long as the total amount for each claim does not exceed $150,000.