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*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 12 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

GARY LEE MCCOLPIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY STOTTS, Secretary of

Corrections and DAVID R. MCKUNE,

Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-3324

(D. Ct. No. 93-CV-3411)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This appeal is from an order of the district court denying pro se appellant’s

motion to reconsider the district court’s order dismissing his claim for a denial of
1Appellant has an outstanding balance for the filing fee of this appeal and is

reminded of his continuing obligation to forward partial payments to the Clerk of the

District Court in accordance with the district court's order of February 11, 1997.

- 2 -

religious liberty. On appeal, the appellant reiterates the conclusory allegations

that were made in the district court that he has been denied his rights under the

First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United

States with respect to the practice of his religious beliefs. We affirm.

In an order dated October 25, 1996, the district court provisionally granted

appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal pending receipt and

examination of appellant’s financial records.1

In his pro se brief on appeal, appellant alleges that appellees have placed

unconstitutional restrictions on his freedom to exercise his religious beliefs. 

After examining all of the pleadings, briefs, and other documents filed in the

district court and in this court on appeal, we hold that appellant has failed to

present a non-frivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues

raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Coppedge v. United States, 369

U.S. 438 (1962). We therefore affirm the order of the district court denying

reconsideration of the order dismissing appellant’s action. We further hold that

the filing of this appeal is deemed a “prior occasion” pursuant to the requirements

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and affirm the order of the district court for substantially

the reasons stated in the order of the district court dated August 26, 1996,
- 3 -

dismissing the action, granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

denying plaintiff’s motion for specific performance. AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha

Circuit Judge
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0432 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0432

**1999/432/EC: Decision of the European Parliament of 4 May 1999 giving discharge to the Administrative Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in respect of the implementation of its budget for the 1997 financial year **

*
Official Journal L 168 , 03/07/1999 P. 0030 - 0031 *

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

of 4 May 1999

giving discharge to the Administrative Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in respect of the implementation of its budget for the 1997 financial year

(1999/432/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

- Having regard to the EC Treaty and in particular Article 276 thereof,

- Having regard to the report of the Court of Auditors on the financial statements and management of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Dublin Foundation) for the financial year 1997, and the Foundation's reply thereto (C4-0054/99)(1),

- Having regard to the Council Recommendation of 11 February 1999 (5913/99-C4-0149/99),

- Having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A4-0163/99),

A. Whereas the Court of Auditors finds that the financial statements for the financial year ended 31 December 1997 are reliable and the underlying transactions are, as a whole, legal and regular;

1. Notes the following figures for the accounts of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions:

1997 FINANCIAL YEAR

>TABLE>

2. Acknowledges the positive steps taken by the Foundation to resolve remaining technical problems affecting the separation of duties between the authorising officer and the accounting officer and the implementation of a new decentralised financial system;

3. Welcomes the adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding in order to establish structured cooperation between the management boards of the Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions and the European Agency for Health and Safety;

4. Encourages efforts made by the Foundation to improve day-to-day management of imprest accounts by the establishment of clear definitions, the application of strict guidelines to reduce mission expenses and improvements in procedures for establishing the annual budget as regards study contracts;

5. Gives discharge to the Administrative Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in respect of the implementation of its budget for the 1997 financial year, on the basis of the report of the Court of Auditors;

6. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Administrative Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors and to have it published in the Official Journal (L series).

The Secretary-General

Julian PRIESTLEY

The President

José María GIL-ROBLES

(1) OJ C 406, 28.12.1998, p. 12.
#### § 1603.216 Summary decision.

Upon motion of a party or after notice to the parties, the administrative law judge may issue a summary decision without a hearing if the administrative law judge finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact or that the complaint may be dismissed pursuant to § 1603.107 or any other grounds authorized by this part. A summary decision shall otherwise conform to the requirements of § 1603.217.
§ 1917.155 Air receivers. ( a ) *Application.* This section applies to compressed air receivers and equipment used for operations such as cleaning, drilling, hoisting and chipping. It does not apply to equipment used to convey materials or in such transportation applications as railways, vehicles or cranes.
( b ) *Gauges and valves.* ( 1 ) Air receivers shall be equipped with indicating pressure gauges and spring-loaded safety valves. Safety valves shall prevent receiver pressure from exceeding 110 percent of the maximum allowable working pressure.
( 2 ) No other valves shall be placed between air receivers and their safety valves.
#### BADY v. THE STATE.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed on motion of Attorney General.
#### George RILEY *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5643

474 S.W. 2d 410

Opinion delivered December 20, 1971

[Rehearing denied January 24, 1972.]

*Kenneth Coffelt,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General; *Gene O’Daniel,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

A jury convicted appellant of the crime of first degree murder and recommended life imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. The State had waived the death penalty. From the judgment on that verdict comes this appeal. For reversal appellant contends that: The appellant was entitled to have the jury instructed by the trial court on all degrees of homicide, regardless of whether his counsel waived and objected to such instructions, and the failure of the trial court to so instruct the jury is reversible error. We find no merit in this contention.

The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the State’s theory of the case is not questioned by appellant. However, it was appellant’s defense that the killing resulted from an accidental gunshot wound. Being a capital case, appellant asserts that it is the absolute duty of the trial court to instruct on a lesser offense when there is any evidence to justify it. *Walton*v. *State,*232 Ark. 86, 334 S. W. 2d 657 (1960). Therefore, in the case at bar, appellant’s counsel could not effectively waive the right of the appellant to an instruction on a lesser degree of *713the alleged offense. However, in *Walton*the defendant requested an instruction on a lesser degree of murder and objected to the court’s refusal to give the proffered instruction. In the case at bar, the court offered to give an instruction on second: degree murder and did not give it because of the objection of appellant’s counsel. The appellant offered no instructions. The trial strategy was that the jury would not convict the appellant of first degree murder, whereas it might convict him of the lesser offense if given that choice. In other words, where the jury had only the choice of life imprisonment or acquittal, it was considered that the latter action of the jury would most likely prevail. It is not demonstrated to us'that this strategy did not have appellant’s understanding and approval. Appellant’s counsel candidly admits that he misjudged the situation. It is well recognized that experienced and competent trial counsel often employ such trial strategy advantageously for a defendant.

In *Randle &Wright*v. State, 245 Ark. 653, 434 S. W. 2d 294 (1968) the appellants were charged with first degree rape, a capital offense. There the appellants did not request an instruction on a lesser degree and ob1 jected to the giving of such an instruction when requested by the State. There we said that the trial court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of third degree rape. Furthermore, that an appellant is in no position to complain about the trial court’s rulings which are made at appellant’s insistence.

Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 26, 2010 

s0719 

Order 

 

July 26, 2010 

140378 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140378 

 COA: 294327 

Wayne CC: 80-005790 

JOHN ALEXANDER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
§ 35.22 Feathering propellers. ( a ) Feathering propellers are intended to feather from all flight conditions, taking into account expected wear and leakage. Any feathering and unfeathering limitations must be documented in the appropriate manuals.
( b ) Propeller pitch control systems that use engine oil to feather must incorporate a method to allow the propeller to feather if the engine oil system fails.
( c ) Feathering propellers must be designed to be capable of unfeathering after the propeller system has stabilized to the minimum declared outside air temperature.
[Amdt. 35-8, 73 FR 63347, Oct. 24, 2008]
MICHAEL ANTHONY 

TRIMUAR,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2484

Opinion filed June 23, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Michael Anthony Trimuar, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 933 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 933

            For the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2007

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            For the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel shall each be deemed to have been 
lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be 
eligible for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application for such 
adjustment of status.
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the application for adjustment of status is filed with 
appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
permanent resident status to Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, 
during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel's birth under section 202(e) or 203(a) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)), as 
applicable.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31616-31617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12454]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


U.S. National Assessment Synthesis Team; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 
92-463, as amended), the National

[[Page 31617]]

Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

    Name: U.S. National Assessment Synthesis Team (#5219).
    Date and Time: May 31, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., June 1, 2000, 
8:30 a.m.-3:30 p.m.
    Place: Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth Street, NW, Washington DC 
20001.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Thomas Spence, National Science Foundation, 
4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 705, Arlington, VA 22230. Tel. 703-306-
1502; Fax: 703-306-0372; E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b6f686b7e75787e5b75687d357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f0b0c0f1a111c1a3f110c1951181009">[email protected]</span></a>. Interested persons 
should contact Ms. Susan Henson at the above number as soon as 
possible to ensure space provisions are made for all participants 
and observers.
    Minutes: May be obtained subsequent to the meeting from the 
contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To review preparation of the report the 
National Assessment Synthesis Team is preparing for the interagency 
Subcommittee on Global Change Research to report on the findings of 
the National Assessment of the potential consequences of climate 
variability and climate change for the United States.
    Agenda: Day 1 (May 31): Members will review technical comments 
received and will discuss revisions to report; and opportunity for 
public comment will be provided in later afternoon. Day 2 (June 1): 
Discussion of technical comments and revisions will continue.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12454 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 1919.26 Visual inspection before tests.

Before any test under this subpart E is carried out, a visual inspection of the gear involved shall be conducted and any visibly defective gear shall be replaced or repaired. The provisions of § 1919.15(d) shall be adhered to.
# L_2008116EN.01008601.xml

| 30.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 116/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 116/86

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 508/1999 of 4 March 1999 amending Annexes I to IV of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 60 of 9 March 1999
  )

On page 39, in Annex II, under category 3 ‘Substances generally recognised as safe’, first column, sixth line:

for:

‘Benzoyl benzoate’,

read:

‘Benzyl benzoate’.

---
[No. 20159-7-III.

Division Three.

November 7, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Susan Kay Nelson, *Respondent,*and David Paul Nelson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kittitas County, No. 99-3-00052-4, Michael E. Cooper, J., entered April 9, 2001. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Kurtz, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
EXHIBIT 99.4

                 Master Servicer's Sarbanes-Oxley Certification
                       (1998 Transactions - 1999 Reports)

                   BANK OF AMERICA MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.,
                       MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
                      SERIES SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT I HERETO

            I, Gary K. Bettin, a Senior Vice President of Bank of America, N.A.,
certify that:

1.    I have reviewed the annual reports on Form 10-K for the calendar year 1999
      and all reports on Form 8-K containing the statements to
      certificateholders set forth in Section 4.03(b) of the Pooling and
      Servicing Agreements listed on Exhibit I hereto (the "Distribution Date
      Statements") filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by
      such annual reports of the trusts (each, a "Trust") formed pursuant to
      such Pooling and Servicing Agreements;

2.    Based on my knowledge, with respect to each Trust, the information in
      these reports, taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of
      a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by such
      annual report; and

3.    Based on my knowledge, the servicing information required to be provided
      to the trustee by each master servicer under each Pooling and Servicing
      Agreement for inclusion in the related Trust's Distribution Date
      Statements is included in these reports.


                                        BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
                                           as Master Servicer


                                        By:/s/ Gary K. Bettin
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Gary K. Bettin
                                           Title: Senior Vice President

<PAGE>

         PARTIES TO AGREEMENT              DATE OF AGREEMENT        SERIES
================================================================================

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    April 1, 1998               1998-1
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
of California

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    May 1, 1998                 1998-2
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
of California

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    June 1, 1998                1998-3
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    July 1, 1998                1998-4
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    September 1, 1998           1998-5
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    November 1, 1998            1998-6
Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and The
Bank of New York

Bank of America Mortgage Securities,    December 1, 1998            1998-7
Inc., Bank of America, N.A., BA
Mortgage, LLC and The Bank of New York
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                             540
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,332
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150
<INVENTORY>                                     18,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,699
<PP&E>                                          11,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,187
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           156
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,992
<SALES>                                         99,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                99,292
<CGS>                                           76,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    82
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 997
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,550
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,766
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,764
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,764
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>