alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George ARMSTEAD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20403.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 1963.

*726George Armstead, in pro. per.

Peter E. Duffy, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Louis C. La Cour, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, GEWIN, and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was tried to a jury and convicted of smuggling marihuana into the United States in violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a. He was sentenced to a term of seven years imprisonment. He was represented by counsel of his own choice and did not appeal from the Judgment of conviction.

His motion under the authority of 'Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 to vacate the conviction and sentence was denied by the District Court without a hearing. The asserted basis for the motion was conviction upon evidence seized as the result of an unlawful search, and because the government failed to prove every essential element charged in the indictment. In addition, appellant complains here of the denial of his motion by the District Court without a hearing.

Appellant made no effort to suppress the evidence allegedly seized as a result of an unlawful search either prior to or during his trial, and may not. now collaterally attack the judgment of conviction on this ground. United States v. Zavada, 6 Cir., 1961, 291 F.2d 189;. White v. United States, 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 235 F.2d 221 and Barber v. United States, 10 Cir., 1952, 197 F.2d 815, cert. den., 344 U.S. 857, 73 S.Ct. 94, 97 L.Ed. 665. Nor may he now collaterally attack the judgment by questioning the sufficiency of the evidence' with respect to whether or not the government proved the essential elements-charged in the indictment. McCreary v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 249 F.2d 433;. and Arthur v. United States, 5 Cir., 1956,. 230 F.2d 666.

It follows from this that appellant was not entitled to a hearing on his-motion since it raised only questions of law. Lopez v. United States, 5 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 452; and Mohler v. United. States, 5 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 854.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE MEJIA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-16550 

D.C. No. 4:21-cv-01351-HSG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Jose Mejia appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 

diversity action alleging state law breach of contract and negligence claims. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for 

failure to state claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (12)(b)(6). Cervantes 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 21-16550 

v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Mejia’s action because Mejia failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 

250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (Cal. 2011) (elements of a breach of contract claim); 

Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp, 163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 637, 640 (Ct. App. 2013) (elements of 

a negligence claim). 

AFFIRMED.
§ 21.390 Rehabilitation research and special projects. ( a ) *General.* VA shall carry out an ongoing program of activities for the purpose of advancing the knowledge, methods, techniques, and resources available for use in rehabilitation programs for veterans. For this purpose, VA may conduct research and development, provide support for research and development, or both conduct and provide support for the development and conduct of: ( 1 ) Studies and research concerning the psychological, educational, social, vocational, industrial, and economic aspects of rehabilitation; and
( 2 ) Projects which are designed to increase the resources and potential for accomplishing the rehabilitation of disabled veterans. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119(a))
( b ) *Grants.* VA may make grants to, or contract with, public on nonprofit agencies, including institutions of higher learning, to carry out the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119(b))
( c ) *Research by Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) staff members.* VA will encourage research by VR&E staff members. This research will address problems affecting service delivery, initiation and continuation in rehabilitation programs, and other areas directly affecting the quality of VR&E services to veterans. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119(a))
( d ) *Interagency coordination.* VA shall cooperate with the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration and the Director of the National Institute of Handicapped Research in the Department of Education, the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment in the Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding rehabilitation studies, research, and special projects of mutual programmatic concern.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119(c))
[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984, as amended at 62 FR 17710, Apr. 11, 1997; 87 FR 8743, Feb. 16, 2022]
# Official Journal C 272/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.272.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 272 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5415 September 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.272.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 272

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5415 September 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | Council |
| 2011/C 272/01 | Council Recommendation of 12 July 2011 on the National Reform Programme 2011 of Slovakia and delivering a Council opinion on the updated Stability Programme of Slovakia, 2011-2014 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RECOMMENDATIONS

Council

2011/C 272/01

Council Recommendation of 12 July 2011 on the National Reform Programme 2011 of Slovakia and delivering a Council opinion on the updated Stability Programme of Slovakia, 2011-2014

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 272/02 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2011/C 272/03 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2011/C 272/02

Euro exchange rates

5

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2011/C 272/03

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

6

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2011/C 272/04 | State aid — Greece — State aid SA.32544 (11/C) (ex N/11) — Restructuring of the Greek Railways — Trainose SA — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2011/C 272/04

State aid — Greece — State aid SA.32544 (11/C) (ex N/11) — Restructuring of the Greek Railways — Trainose SA — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
DENIED and Opinion Filed December 12, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01037-CV

IN RE JUAN GUERRA AND JU AN DELTORO, Relators
Original Proceeding from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-07967



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, M yers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Whitehill Before the Court is relators’ petition for writ of mandamus in which relators complain of the trial court’s order granting the amended motion to compel a rbitration filed by the real parties in interest. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion a nd that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential
Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the re lief requested. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

181037F.P05 /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### Commonwealth v. Higgenbottom

*J. William, Ditter, Jr.,*for Commonwealth.

*H. Lester Haws,*for defendant.

February 15, 1956.

Forrest, J.,

Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle after suspension and revocation of operating privileges. The case was tried by the writer without a jury. The testimony of the Commonwealth was to the effect that defendant operated a motor vehicle after his operating privileges had been revoked by the Secretary of the Department of Revenue for the reason that he had been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. There was no evidence that defendant actually had an operator’s license at the time of the “revocation”. Defendant presented no evidence but demurred to the Commonwealth’s evidence on the basis set forth by his counsel as follows:

> “At this point, sir, I demur to the evidence, because *658Mr. Ditter has not shown there was a license to be revoked, and, therefore, this notice as to revocation could not revoke anything, and, the man therefore would be guilty only of driving without a license, section 601.”

The hearing judge then found defendant guilty and defendant filed a motion for new trial assigning the three usual reasons: “1. The verdict was against the evidence. 2. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. 3. The verdict was against the law.”

Section 620 of The Vehicle Code, as amended 75 PS §231, provides that it is unlawful: “(h) To operate any motor vehicle . . . after the operating privilege is suspended or revoked, and before such operating privilege has been reinstated.” The question here is whether a driver, whose operating privileges have been revoked, although it is not shown that he ever actually had an operator’s license, is guilty of operating a motor vehicle after suspension or revocation of operating privileges.

In a similar case, in this court, President Judge Knight aptly stated: “Counsel for the defendant contends that as the defendant never had a license, it was impossible to revoke something which never existed. It is not the license of the defendant that was revoked, but his operating privilege. One of his operating privileges . . . was the right to apply for a license to operate and this privilege or right could be revoked as well as any existing license he may have held”: Commonwealth v. Hightower, no. 172, November term, 1949, unreported. The instant case is on all fours with that case. Suffice it to say that the Hightower case is controlling and the motion should be overruled.

And now, February 15, 1956, the motion for new trial is overruled and defendant is directed to appear in court for sentence at such time as the district attorney shall list the same.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-12-0000009 

01-JUL-2013 

08:32 AM 

SCWC-12-0000009 


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
 

vs.
 

CHAD GETZ, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-12-0000009; CR. NO. 11-1-0608)
 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 


(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s Application for Writ
 

of Certiorari filed on May 17, 2013, is hereby accepted.
 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be
 

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant
 

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move 

for retention of oral argument. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, July 1, 2013. 

Summer M.M. Kupau

for petitioner
 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.1711 Effect of contributions by government, public, or private organizations. ( a ) *Contributions by government or employer.* With respect to claims for a plot or interment allowance under § 3.1707, if VA has evidence that the U.S., a State, any agency or political subdivision of the U.S. or of a State, or the employer of the deceased veteran has paid or contributed payment to the veteran's plot or interment expenses, VA will pay the claimant up to the lesser of: ( 1 ) The allowable statutory amount; or
( 2 ) The amount of the total plot or interment expenses minus the amount of expenses paid by any or all of the organizations described in this paragraph (a).
( b ) *Burial expenses paid by other agencies of the U.S.* ( 1 ) *Burial allowance when Federal law or regulation also provides for payment.* VA cannot pay the non-service-connected burial allowance when any Federal law or regulation also specifically provides for the payment of the deceased veteran's burial, funeral, or transportation expenses. However, VA will pay the non-service-connected burial allowance when a Federal law or regulation allows the payment of burial expenses using funds due, or accrued to the credit of, the deceased veteran (such as Social Security benefits), but the law or regulation does not specifically require such payment. In such cases, VA will pay the maximum amount specified in 38 U.S.C. 2302.
( 2 ) *Payment by military service department.* VA will not pay or will recoup the non-service-connected burial allowance for deaths occurring during active service or for other deaths for which the service department pays the burial, funeral, or transportation expenses.
( 3 ) *When a veteran dies while hospitalized.* When a veteran dies while hospitalized at the expense of the U.S. government (including, but not limited to, death in a VA facility) and benefits would be otherwise payable under 10 U.S.C. 1482 and a provision of this subpart B, only one of these benefits is payable. VA will attempt to locate a relative of the veteran or another person entitled to reimbursement under § 3.1702(b) and will ask that person to elect between these benefits.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2302, 2303(b))
§ 17.606 Award procedures. ( a ) *Amount of scholarship.* ( 1 ) A scholarship award will consist of ( i ) tuition and required fees,
( ii ) other educational expenses, including books and laboratory equipment, and
( iii ) except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a monthly stipend, for the duration of the scholarship award. All such payments to scholarship participants are exempt from Federal taxation. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7636)
( 2 ) No stipend may be paid to a participant who is a full-time VA employee.
( 3 ) The Secretary may determine the amount of the stipend paid to participants, whether part-time students or full-time students, but that amount may not exceed the maximum amount provided for in 38 U.S.C. 7613(b).
( 4 ) In the case of a part-time student who is a part-time employee, the maximum stipend, if more than a nominal stipend is paid, will be reduced in accordance with the proportion that the number of credit hours carried by such participant bears to the number of credit hours required to be carried by a full-time student in the course of training being pursued by the participant.
( 5 ) A full stipend may be paid only for the months the part-time student is attending classes. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7614(2))
( 6 ) The Secretary may make arrangements with the school in which the participant is enrolled for the direct payment of the amount of tuition and/or reasonable educational expenses on the participant's behalf. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7613(c))
( 7 ) A participant's eligibility for a stipend ends at the close of the month in which degree requirements are met.
( b ) *Leave-of-absence, repeated course work.* The Secretary may suspend scholarship payments to or on behalf of a participant if the school ( 1 ) approves a leave-of-absence for the participant for health, personal, or other reasons, or
( 2 ) requires the participant to repeat course work for which the Secretary previously has made payments under the Scholarship Program. Additional costs relating to the repeated course work will not be paid under this program. Any scholarship payments suspended under this section will be resumed by the Secretary upon notification by the school that the participant has returned from the leave-of-absense or has satisfactorily completed the repeated course work and is proceeding as a full-time student in the course of study for which the scholarship was awarded.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7633)
[48 FR 37400, Aug. 18, 1983, as amended at 55 FR 40170, Oct. 2, 1990]
#### George H. Westervelt, Appellant, *v.*Thomas Burns, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, rendered, in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, borough óf The Bronx, for the second district.

Bennett & Silverman, for appellant.

No other appéarance.

Leventritt, J.

This was an action on an assigned claim. The defense was payment. From the evidence the conclusion of the justice was fully warranted. There is but a single question of law presented for review, and it arises from a denial, of the plaintiff’s motion to strike out certain testimony. It having been introduced without objection, the disposition of the motion was within the sound discretion of the court. Miller v. Montgomery, 78 N. Y. 282; Murray v. Fox, 39 Hun, 108; affirmed, 104 N. Y. 382. A party against whom a witness is called and examined cannot, as *782' was done in the case at bar, lie by and speculate on the chances, first.learning what the witness testified, and then, when he, finds the testimony unsatisfactory, object either to the competency of the witness, or to the form or substance of his testimony. Quin v. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349. But even, if the plaintiff had preserved his right by a seasonable objection, the- motion to strike out could'.'not prevail, as it was general in form and directed against testimony, part of which was entirely competent. Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 35, N. Y. 204 McCabe v. Brayton, 38 id. 196.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Fbeedmak, P. J., and MacLeait, J., concur.

Judgment-affirmed, wit-b costs to respondent,
Jump to main content.

Effluent Limitation Guidelines

Recent Additions | Contact Us**Search:**All EPAThis Area

    - You are here:  EPA Home
    - Water
    - Water Science
    - Effluent Guidelines
    - Oil and Gas Extraction
    - Final Rule Fact Sheet
    - Environmental Assessment

----

# Effluent Guidelines

## Oil and Gas Extraction (Synthetic-Based Drilling Fluids)

### Final Rule Environmental Assessment

EPA-821-B-00-014; December 2000

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.
    - Part 1: Main Document (PDF)  (476 K)        - Cover
      - Table of Contents
      - Executive Summary
      - Chapter 1 - Introduction
      - Chapter 2 - Description of Regulatory Options
      - Chapter 3 - Characterization
      - Chapter 4 - Water Quality Assessment
      - Chapter 5 - Human Health Risks
      - Chapter 6 - Toxicity
      - Chapter 7 - Bioaccumulation
      - Chapter 8 - Biodegradation
      - Chapter 9 - Seabed Surveys
      - Chapter 10 - Bibliography 
    - Part 2: Appendices (PDF)  (236 K)        - Appendix 3-1: Calculation of Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Catch
      - Appendix 4-1: Gulf of Mexico Surface Water Quality Analysis
      - Appendix 4-2: Cook Inlet, Alaska Surface Water Quality Analysis
      - Appendix 4-3: Offshore California Surface Water Quality Analysis
      - Appendix 4-4: Gulf of Mexico Sediment Pore Water Quality Analysis
      - Appendix 4-5: Cook Inlet, Alaska Sediment Pore Water Quality Analysis
      - Appendix 4-6: Offshore California Sediment Pore Water Quality Analysis
      - Appendix 4-7: Gulf of Mexico Sediment Guidelines Analysis
      - Appendix 4-8: Cook Inlet, Alaska Sediment Guidelines Analysis
      - Appendix 4-9: Offshore California Sediment Guidelines Analysis
      - Appendix 5-1: Offshore California Human Health Risk Analysis 

316(b) | UNDS | NPDES

----

### Local Navigation

    - Water Science Home 
    - Effluent Guidelines Home
    - Basic Information
    - Frequent Questions
    - Industry Regulations
    - Implementation & Compliance
    - History
    - Laws & Regulatory Development
    - Planning
    - Environmental Effects
    - Data Resources & Tools
    - Draft Strategy
    - Treatment Technologies
    - Related Links

----

    - EPA Home
    - Privacy and Security Notice
    - Contact Us

Jump to main content.
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2380
**Geologic Map of the Nor Arevik Coal Site, Southern Armenia**
*By* Edward A. Johnson, Artur Martirosyan, Brenda S. Pierce, GourgenMalkhassian, and Michael E. Brownfield
Version 1.0

This report is presented in Portable Document Format. The latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software is required to view it. If you wish to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader free of charge, click here.

Map PDF file (25 KB)
Text-only Map PDF file (32 KB)(This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.)
Pamphlet PDF file (4.6 MB)(This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.)

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/mf/2002/mf-2380/Questions or Assistance: USGS Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thr Dec  1 12:08 EDT 2016
#### § 11.111 Form of application.

Application must be made on Department of Veterans Affairs Adjusted Compensation Form 1701.

[13 FR 7127, Nov. 27, 1948]