alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James D. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

No. 20614.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 11, 1963.

No appearances for either appellant or appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge, LUMBARD, Chief Judge *, and BROWN, Circuit Judge.

*

 Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks an order allowing him to appeal in forma pauperis from a denial, without hearing, of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2255, 1915. Following our. regular practice in making a determination of these matters, we have access to the record below and have reviewed it carefully. See Juelich v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 316 F.2d 726. We are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by first allowing Petitioner’s appeal to this Court and then setting the case down for argument. The Court below denied Petitioner’s § 2255 motion on the ground that the “files and records conclusively show” that he is entitled to no relief.

Petitioner alleges with sufficient factual particularity that he was mentally incompetent, not only at the time of the commission of the offense, but also at the time of trial under his plea of not guilty. Twenty-two months after his arrest (and following his sentence) Petitioner was diagnosed as a schizophrenic paranoid personality and is presently confined in a medical center for federal prisoners. Nothing in the record refutes these allegations. Indeed, the record (apart from the § 2255 motion) is completely silent as to the mental capacity of Petitioner as of these various times. As we have pointed out in the many cases catalogued in Porter v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 461, 464, a hearing as to the appropriate issues is required unless — in the plain words of the statute — “the files and records of the case conclusively show that the [Petitioner] is entitled to no relief.” Like many other cases presenting a question of mental competency, this case must go back for a hearing to determine fac*816tually the merit of Petitioner’s contentions. Gregori v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 48; Praylow v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 792; Hughes v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 303 F.2d 776; Corbett v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 131; Van De Bogart v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 583; Alexander v. United States, 5 Cir., 1961, 290 F.2d 252; Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 42. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.
# Official Journal L 327/30 O

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 327 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4730 October 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 327

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4730 October 2004

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# Official Journal C 289/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 289 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6227 August 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 289

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6227 August 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 289/01 | Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9454 — EP Global Commerce/METRO) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 289/01

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9454 — EP Global Commerce/METRO) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 289/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 289/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 289/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9446 — Toyota Motor Corporation/Panasonic Corporation/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2019/C 289/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9446 — Toyota Motor Corporation/Panasonic Corporation/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
<PAGE>

RUBENSTEIN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

PUBLIC RELATIONS                                 1345 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
                                                 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10105-0109
                                                 212-843-800
                                                 FAX 212-843-9200


March 18, 2003




Mr. Charles Fust
Chairman, CEO
SinoFresh Healthcare, Inc.
313 S. Seaboard Avenue
Venice, FL 34292



Dear Mr. Fust:

I am pleased to confirm our understanding whereby SinoFresh Healthcare, Inc.
("SinoFresh") retains Rubenstein Communications, In ("Rubenstein") as public
relations counsel beginning February 19, 2003 though August 19, 2003.
Thereafter, this agreement will renew automatically on a month-to-month basis
unless cancelled by either party on thirty (30) days written notice.

As part of our public relations services, Rubenstein will seek to publicize
SinoFresh and its activities in a positive and constructive way. Rubenstein will
seek projection thought the major media: newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, new
media and trade and business publications, as deemed appropriate.

Rubenstein will also provide you with public relations advice and guidance to
enhance your image.

SinoFresh agrees to pay Rubenstein $12,500 per month, in advance, for the
services listed above on the 19th of each month starting on February 19,2003.
SinoFresh also agrees to pay all out-of-pocket expenses. These may include, but
are not limited to, postage, Xerox, long-distance telephone, messengers,
photography, printing, and travel expenses. Any individual expense in excess of
$200 will be approved by SinoFresh in advance.

By execution of this agreement, SinoFresh agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless Rubenstein against any and all claims, actions, damages, liabilities,
costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees and expenses, arising
out of Rubenstein's utilization of any authorized information.


<PAGE>

Page 2


This agreement and the attachments hereto, if any, constitute the entire
agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein and
there are no representations, understandings, or agreements relative hereto
which are not fully expressed herein.

This agreement and performance thereunder is governed by the laws of the State
of New York.

If this agreement outlines our understanding, please sign a copy and return it
to Rubenstein with your first month's fee of $12,5000.

I have enclosed a bill for your convenience.

I look forward to a mutually productive relationship.

Sincerely yours,


Steven Rubenstein
President


DATE:  March 21, 2003
       -----------------------

ACCEPTED BY:

/s/ Mr. Charles Fust
------------------------------


------------------------------

cc:  Steves Rodriguez
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2525 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2525

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over 
  the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State's 
                        admission to the Union.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 2007

  Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over 
  the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State's 
                        admission to the Union.

    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 ``State Admission Day Recognition Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVERSARY OF STATE'S 
              ADMISSION TO UNION.

    (a) In General.--To honor the anniversary of each State's admission 
to the Union, the Architect of the Capitol shall fly the flag of the 
State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the 
State's admission to the Union. If the anniversary of the date of a 
State's admission to the Union falls on the same day as the anniversary 
of another State's admission to the Union, the Architect shall fly the 
flag of each such State on that day.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The Architect of the Capitol shall fly the 
        first flag of a State over the Capitol under this section on 
        the first September 9 which occurs after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, in honor of the anniversary of the 
        admission of California to the Union.
            (2) Treatment of first flag flown.--The Architect shall 
        present the first State flag flown over the Capitol under this 
        section (as described in paragraph (1)) to the Native Sons and 
        Daughters of the Golden West.
                                 <all>
```
#### George Beck, Respondent, *v.*Sarah E. Cooke, as Executrix, etc., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Wayland E. Benjamin, for appellant.

Appell & Reid, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Present: Eitzsimons, Oh. J., and O’Dwyeb, J.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 238 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                      December 3, 2007.
    Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 
238) entitled ``An Act to repeal a prohibition on the use of certain 
funds for tunneling in certain areas with respect to the Los Angeles to 
San Fernando Valley Metro Rail project, California.'', do pass with the 
following

                               AMENDMENT:

On page 2, after line 4, insert: 

SEC. 2. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS.

    Section 5307(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``2007'' and inserting 
        ``2009'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2007'' and inserting 
        ``2009''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) Maximum amounts in fiscal years 2008 and 
                2009.--In fiscal years 2008 and 2009--
                            ``(i) amounts made available to any 
                        urbanized area under clause (i) or (ii) of 
                        subparagraph (A) shall be not more than 50 
                        percent of the amount apportioned in fiscal 
                        year 2002 to the urbanized area with a 
                        population of less than 200,000, as determined 
                        in the 1990 decennial census of population;
                            ``(ii) amounts made available to any 
                        urbanized area under subparagraph (A)(iii) 
                        shall be not more than 50 percent of the amount 
                        apportioned to the urbanized area under this 
                        section for fiscal year 2003; and
                            ``(iii) each portion of any area not 
                        designated as an urbanized area, as determined 
                        by the 1990 decennial census, and eligible to 
                        receive funds under subparagraph (A)(iv), shall 
                        receive an amount of funds to carry out this 
                        section that is not less than 50 percent of the 
                        amount the portion of the area received under 
                        section 5311 in fiscal year 2002.''.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 238

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
# Municipal Airport Phone (928) 764-3330 • Fax (928) 764-2310 

# LAKE HAVASU CITY



# ---------------------------------- February 15, 2016 Mr. James T. Brown Federa l Aviation Administration Attention : Director , Office of Airport Comp liance And Management Analysis 800 Independence Avenue, S .W . Washington. DC 20591 Dear Mr. Brown ; Thank you for your time on the telephone during the week of February 8th addressing questions regard ing the Jet Fuel tax issue and allowing an extensi on to convey of our City Action Plan response which follows. Lake Havasu City Tax Code 

### § 3.04.422 provides for a three cents ($.03) per gallon tax on the sale ofjet fuel by businesses with permanent business locations within City limits . The Lake Havasu City Finance Department has identified businesses the tax on aviation fuel sales. current practice is to include jet fuel TPT revenues with other categories ofTPT collections and deposit those funds Into the City's General Fund . In order to prospectively comply with the Federal Aviation Administration Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue ; Proceeds from Taxes on Aviation Fuel (79 Fed . Reg. 6628) (Amendment ), the City will include in its F iscal Year 2016-17 ( Beginn i ng July 1, 2016) Annual Budget a provision to allocate the TPT revenues co llected on the sale of aviation fuel to the City's Airport Enterprise Fund. The City Counci l , which serves as the City' s l egislative board, is requ i red by State Statut e to formally adopt an annual budget by the thi rd Monday in July (A . R.S . 

### § 42-17101) . The City is committed to complyi ng with the Amendment on an ongoing basis by allocating the revenue to the Airport Enterprise Fund each year after June 30 , 2017 . To comply with the budget provision, each month the City's Finance Department will allocate the revenues identified as collections from the three cent per gallon tax on aviation jet fuel to a sepa rate revenue account i n the A irport Enterprise Fund. This revenue w ill be expended in accordance with the Airport Fund ' s operating and/or capital budget. 

### 5600 North Hwy. 95 , #1• Lake Havasu City , AZ 86404 www.lhcaz.govShould you have any further questions please contact Ms . Tabatha Miller at 928 854 4230. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely,



### R. Steven Johnston Airport Supervisor Lake Havasu Municipal Airport
#### § 20.1102 Rule 1102. Harmless error.

An error or defect in any decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals which does not affect the merits of the issue or substantive rights of the appellant will be considered harmless and not a basis for vacating or reversing such decision.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7103)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 16, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133554(158)(159) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

NATIONAL PRIDE AT WORK, INC., a nonprofit organization on behalf of its Michigan 

Members, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 SC: 133554 
 v COA: 265870 
 Ingham CC: 05-000368-CZ

GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN and CITY OF 

KALAMAZOO, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Intervening Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for temporary admission of 

Stephen Sanders is GRANTED. The motion by the Michigan Professors of Law for 

leave to file a brief amicus curiae is considered and it is GRANTED. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 16, 2007 

 Clerk
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 226 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard 

in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed 

firearms in the State. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national 

standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a 

State may carry concealed firearms in the State. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF 

4 CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NON5 RESIDENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United 

7 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C 

8 the following: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 226 IH

1 ‘‘§ 926D. National standard for the carrying of certain 

2 concealed firearms by nonresidents 

3 ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any 

4 State or political subdivision thereof, a person who is not 

5 prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, 

6 shipping, or receiving a firearm and is carrying a valid 

7 license or permit which is issued by a State and which 

8 permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (other 

9 than a machinegun or destructive device) may carry in an10 other State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun 

11 or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported 

12 in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection 

13 (b). 

14 ‘‘(b)(1) If such other State issues licenses or permits 

15 to carry concealed firearms, the person may carry a con16 cealed firearm in the State under the same restrictions 

17 which apply to the carrying of a concealed firearm by a 

18 person to whom the State has issued such a license or 

19 permit. 

20 ‘‘(2) If such other State does not issue licenses or 

21 permits to carry concealed firearms, the person may not, 

22 in the State, carry a concealed firearm in a police station, 

23 in a public detention facility, in a courthouse, in a public 

24 polling place, at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal 

25 governing body, in a school, at a professional or school 

26 athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

•HR 226 IH

1 establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic 

2 beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the 

3 sterile or passenger area of an airport, except to the extent 

4 expressly permitted by State law.’’. 

5 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

6 for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item 

7 relating to section 926C the following: 

‘‘926D. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed firearms by nonresidents.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOE ABBOTT,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

E. TOOTELL, Doctor; J. GRANT, Doctor,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 14-15599

D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00183-LHK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2016** 

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Defendants Drs. Grant and Tootell appeal from the district court’s denial of

their motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. We

have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell

v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526-27 (1985). We review de novo the district court’s

FILED

JAN 27 2016

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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
ruling on qualified immunity, George v. Edholm, 752 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir.

2014), and we affirm.

The district court properly denied summary judgment to defendants Grant

and Tootell on Abbott’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim because

Abbott raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants acted

with deliberate indifference to his shoulder pain. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 837 (1994) (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim, a prison “official must

both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial

risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.”). Moreover, the

law was clearly established at the time of defendants’ conduct that knowledge and

conscious disregard of “an excessive risk to inmate health” violates the Eighth

Amendment. Id.; see also Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2080, 2083 (2011)

(setting forth qualified immunity test and recognizing that a clearly established

right does “not require a case directly on point”). 

AFFIRMED.

2 14-15599
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 7, 2011

0131 

# Order

February 7, 2011

141934

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141934 COA: 293013 Oakland CC: 2008-223861-FC DARNELL DUNLAP, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 21, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.