alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cesar Francesco BARONE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joan PALMATEER, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-36030.

D.C. No. CV-00-00074-HU.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 10, 2004.*

Decided March 2, 2004.

Christine Stebbins Dahl, FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Portland), Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Ryan P. Kahn, Office of The Attorney General (Oregon), Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before D.W. NELSON, KLEINFELD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Cesar Francesco Barone appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The Certificate of Appealability limited review to whether Barone’s trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel and whether this claim is procedurally defaulted. We hold that Barone’s claim is procedurally defaulted because he raised new factual allegations that were fundamental to his claim in federal court, which he had not presented to the state court. *See Chacon v. Wood,*36 F.3d 1459, 1468 (9th Cir.1994), *superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by Morris v. Woodford,*229 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir. 2000).

Clearly, Barone raised the same legal claim — ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to investigate — in the state court proceeding. However, the changed factual basis of the claim, which now rests on the witness Luán Lanter, who was nowhere mentioned before the state court, is sufficiently fundamental to his claim to require that he must have presented this factual evidence to the state courts first. *Id.*This conclusion is supported by our caselaw on ineffective assis*249tance of counsel claims, which emphasizes the fundamental importance of establishing the specific factual basis for this legal claim. *See, e.g., James v. Borg,*24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir.1994) (“Conclusory allegations [of ineffective assistance of counsel] which are not supported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.”).

Accordingly, Barone failed to exhaust his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his trial counsel’s failure to investigate Lanter’s statements. Because Oregon law no longer allows Barone to assert new claims in state court, *see*Or. Rev.Stat. § 138.550(3), his claim is procedurally defaulted. *See Beaty v. Stewart,*303 F.3d 975, 987 (9th Cir.2002). Barone makes no attempt to show “cause and prejudice” for the failure to present his claim in the state court. *See Gray v. Netherland,*518 U.S. 152, 162, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 135 L.Ed.2d 457 (1996). Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that we cannot review this claim.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### § 22.733 Priority of service.

Within the Rural Radiotelephone Service, the channels listed in § 22.725 are intended primarily for use in rendition of public message service between rural subscriber and central office stations and to provide radio trunking facilities between central offices. The channels may also be used, however, for the rendition of private leased-line communication service provided that such usage would not reduce or impair the extent or quality of communication service that would be available, in the absence of private leased-line service, to the general public receiving or subsequently requesting public message service from a central office.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1108: GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"W34A8xiAQL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/9-11-2020-20-1108-garmin-international-inc-v-logantree-lp-opinion-20-1108-opinion-9-11-2020_1650995\/\">20-1108: GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/9-11-2020-20-1108-garmin-international-inc-v-logantree-lp-opinion-20-1108-opinion-9-11-2020_1650995\/embed\/#?secret=W34A8xiAQL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1108: GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"W34A8xiAQL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. LOGANTREE, LP [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1108 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 302-10.207 Am I responsible for excess or non-allowable charges? Yes, you are responsible for any excess preparation or transportation or non-allowable charges, such as: ( a ) Costs for replacement parts, tires purchases, structural repairs, brake repairs or any other repairs or maintenance performed;
( b ) Costs of insurance for valuation of mobile homes above carriers' maximum liabilities, or charges designated in the tariffs as “Special Service;”
( c ) Cost of storage; and
( d ) Costs of connecting/disconnecting appliances, equipment, and utilities involved in relocation and costs of converting appliances for operation on available utilities.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****United States--east coast, NewJersey and Delaware, Delaware River, Smyrna River to Wilmington [electronicresource] /**
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:12311/

Item Number:0191-B-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000878957
 
1996-2000 | 2001-2012
 
April 22, 2020
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10.15(b)  


 
 

FORM OF
  AMENDMENT NO. 2
  TO
  AMENDED AND RESTATED CUSTOMER AGREEMENT    
    


        WHEREAS, MORGAN STANLEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the "Customer"), and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED, formerly Morgan
Stanley DW Inc., a Delaware corporation, (the "Commodity Broker") have agreed to amend the Amended and Restated Customer Agreement, dated as of the 16th day of October 2000, as amended
and supplemented from time to time, (the "Customer Agreement"), by and between the Customer and the Commodity Broker, to reflect the merger of Morgan Stanley DW Inc. into Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and to amend the rate of interest income credited to the Customer's account by the Commodity Broker. Terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Customer Agreement. 


        WHEREAS,
all provisions contained in the Customer Agreement remain in full force and effect and are modified only to the extent necessary to provide for the amendments set forth below. 


        NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties hereto hereby amend the Customer Agreement as follows: 



	1.
	Morgan
Stanley DW Inc. has been merged into Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and any references to "DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.", the predecessor to Morgan Stanley
DW Inc., shall mean "MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED".



	2.
	The
third sentence of Section 7 Investment of Customer Funds is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



	

	"Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated will credit the Customer with interest income on 80% of the Customer's Net Assets on deposit with Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated at each month-end at the rate equal to the monthly average of the 4-Week U.S. Treasury bill discount rate during such month."



	3.
	This
Amendment No. 2 shall be governed and construed under the laws of the State of New York. 




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 to the Customer Agreement has been executed for and on behalf of the undersigned as of the [] day of
[] 2007. 



	 	 	MORGAN STANLEY SPECTRUM STRATEGIC L.P.
	

 	
 	

By:	

Demeter Management Corporation,

General Partner
	

 	
 	

By:	

 Name:

Title:
	

 	
 	

MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED
	

 	
 	

By:	

 Name:

Title:













QuickLinks


FORM OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CUSTOMER AGREEMENT
Exhibit






AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE
TO THE 

KNOWLES CORPORATION
2016 EQUITY AND CASH INCENTIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Knowles Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), maintains the Knowles Corporation 2016 Equity and Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); 
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) has the authority to amend the Plan as it shall deem advisable, subject to any requirement of stockholder approval required by applicable law, rule or regulation; and  
WHEREAS, based on recent amendments to applicable accounting standards, the Board has authorized an amendment of the Plan with respect to the permissible tax withholding rate for shares of common stock of the Corporation to be delivered or withheld to pay a participant’s required tax obligations. 
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan hereby is amended, effective as January 1, 2017, as follows: 


The last sentence of Section 6.6 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following phrase at the end thereof:


“(or, such other rate as elected by the holder that will not cause adverse accounting consequences under the accounting rules then in effect, and is permitted under applicable IRS withholding rules).”


***
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized agent as of November 18, 2016. 


KNOWLES CORPORATION




By:  /s/ Jeffrey Niew
Name:  Jeffrey Niew
Title:  Director
<TABLE>


                         STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS - EXHIBIT 11.1

                               (In Thousands, Except Share and Per Share Amounts)

<CAPTION>

                                                                                     Fiscal Year Ended
                                                                              ---------------------------------
            <S>                                                               <C>                 <C> 
                                                                                   1996               1997
                                                                              ----------------    -------------

            Primary:

            Net Income..........................................................*                $       3,636
                                                                                                  =============
                                                                                                   

            Weighted average common shares outstanding......................... *                    9,687,419

            Common stock equivalents: (stock options and warrants)..............*                      249,980
                                                                                                  -------------

            Weighted average number of common shares and common               
              share equivalents outstanding.....................................*                    9,938,399
                                                                                                  =============

            Earnings per share..................................................*                 $       0.37
                                                                                                  =============
                                                                                                         

</TABLE>


*Earnings  per share has not been  presented  for fiscal 1996  because it is not
considered  to be  meaningful  as a result of the  acquisition  of the  Founding
Companies as discussed in the financial statements included on this Form 10-K

The Company's  common stock has traded on the NASDAQ National Stock Market under
the symbol  "COTL"  since  February  14,  1996.  Prior to that date there was no
public market for the Company's common stock.

The  calculation of fully diluted  earnings per share is the same as the primary
calculation.




                                       48
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David E. Ritter Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

A.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

B.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.



                                       By: /s/ David E. Ritter
                                       -----------------------
                                       David E. Ritter
                                       Senior Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer


                                       Date: May 12, 2006
#### § 3.53 FCC notification of refusal to provide telecommunications service to U.S. registered vessel(s).

An accounting authority must inform the FCC immediately should it receive notice from any source that a foreign administration or facility is refusing or plans to refuse legitimate public correspondence to or from any U.S. registered vessel.
#### § 105-69.405 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Alternative Method of Compliance
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0660

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ALVIAN ERREVY MARQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 1, 2020, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 12 2020

05/12/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0660
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 U. S. C. SECTION 1350
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of Environmental Solutions
Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period September 30, 2008 (the
"Report"), David J. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, and President of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                           DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2008

                                           /S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
                                           --------------------
                                           DAVID J. JOHNSON
                                           CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROY MILES FORD

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 2 2

- 00 139

- C R

Appeal from the

33rd Judicial District Court

o f Burnet County, Texas

(TC# 49738 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below

. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 20 23

.

L ISA J

. SOTO , Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 4112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-674]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1433]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Revlon Consumer Products 
Corporation (Cosmetic and Personal Care Products) Oxford, NC

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones 
Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Triangle J Council of Governments, grantee of Foreign-
Trade Zone 93, has made application to the Board for authority to 
establish a special-purpose subzone at the cosmetic and personal care 
products manufacturing and warehousing facility of Revlon Consumer 
Products Corporation, located in Oxford, North Carolina (FTZ Docket 35-
2005, filed 7/26/05);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 44558-44559, 8/3/05); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the 
application is in the public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to consumer and personal care products 
manufacturing at the facility of Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, 
located in Oxford, North Carolina (Subzone 93G), as described in the 
application and Federal Register notice, and subject to the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations, including section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of January 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Policy and Negotiations, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 06-674 Filed 1-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-PS-M
§ 22.559 Paging application requirements. In addition to information required by subparts B and D and § 22.529, applications for authorization to operate a paging transmitter on the channels listed in § 22.531, other than applications for a paging geographic area authorization, must contain the applicable supplementary information described in this section. ( a ) *Interference exhibit.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an exhibit demonstrating compliance with § 22.537 with regard to protected transmitters is required for applications to operate a transmitter on the VHF channels. This exhibit must: ( 1 ) Identify each protected transmitter located within 109 kilometers (68 miles) of the proposed transmitter in directions in which the distance to the interfering contour is 76.5 kilometers (47.5 miles) or less, and within 178 kilometers (111 miles) of the proposed transmitter in directions in which the distance to the interfering contour exceeds 76.5 kilometers (47.5 miles).
( 2 ) For each protected transmitter identified, show the results of distance calculations indicating that there would be no overlap of service and interfering contours, or alternatively, indicate that the licensee of or applicant for the protected transmitter and/or the applicant, as required, have agreed in writing to accept any interference resulting from operation of the proposed transmitter.
( b ) *Encompassment exhibit.* An exhibit showing that the area within the interfering contour of the proposed transmitter would be totally encompassed by interfering contours of operating co-channel base transmitters controlled by the applicant is required for applications to operate a transmitter with ERP exceeding the basic power and height-power limits of § 22.535. For VHF transmitters, this encompassment exhibit may substitute for the interference exhibit required in paragraph (a) of this section.
[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 11636, Mar. 12, 1997]