alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
34 October 5, 2017 No. 52

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

LEONARD WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff,

v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, an Oregon State Agency, and Collette Peters, an individual, in her personal capacity, Defendants

. (United States District Court 6:16-cv-00783-MC; SC S064696)

En Banc On certified question from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; certification order filed February 13, 2017; certification accepted March 30, 2017. Andrew Altschul, Buchanan Angeli Altschul and Sullivan LLP, Portland, filed the brief for plaintiff. Keith J. Bauer, Parks Bauer Sime Winkler, Salem, appeared on behalf of defendants. Shenoa Payne, Shenoa Payne Attorney at Law PC, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.
PER CURIAM The Oregon Supreme Court declines to answer the certi

fied question.
Case Summary: The United States District Court for the District of Oregon certified a state-law question to the Oregon Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court accepted certification, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. Held : (1) The court declines to answer the certified question; (2) To the extent that the parties wish to have the case dismissed with prejudice and without fees, they should file an appropriate motion in the District Court. The Oregon Supreme Court declines to answer the certified question.Cite as 362 Or 34 (2017) 35

PER CURIAM
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon certified the following state-law question to this court: “Whether public employers can be sued under ORS 659A.199?” After this court accepted certification, the par

ties filed a joint motion in this court, in which they ask us “to dismiss this case with prejudice, and without a prevail

ing party designation, costs or attorney fees to any party.” Although the motion does not set out the basis for the request, we understand from the parties’ representations that they have settled their differences. Given that understanding, we decline to answer the certified question. Any answer that we might give to that question would be advisory. To the extent that the parties wish to have the case dismissed with prejudice and without fees, they should file an appropriate motion in the District Court. The Oregon Supreme Court declines to answer the certified question.
No. 10-10880.

#### Bayard *v.*Hufford, Warden.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9534.

#### Noll *v.*Pennsylvania.

Super. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES v. PIETRANIELLO et al.

No. 48, Docket 21741.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

March 28, 1951.

*871Vine H. Smith, Brooklyn, N. Y., and David J. Paully, New York City, for Pietra-niello.

Myles J. Lane, Bruno Schachner and Albert A. Blinder, New York City, for the United States.

Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, and SWAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On October 30, *1950, in*affirming the convictions of Chiarella, Stancin and Pietra-niello on our own motion we gave leave to Chiarella and Stancin to reargue the affirmance of their convictions on Counts One or Two;1 and on January 5, 1951, U. S. v. Chiarella, 2 Cir., 187 F.2d 12, we reversed the convictions on both these counts, leaving undisturbed only the sentences on Counts Three and Four. The prosecution moved for reargument of this decision which we denied, but in concluding our opinion we said that in view of the change we had made, we would entertain a rehearing of Pietraniello’s conviction upon Count Two: *i. e.,*for possession. Briefs have been filed by both sides and we now reaffirm the conviction against him. His situation is altogether different from that of Chiarella and Stancin. The verdict as to them was upon all three of the substantive counts: receiving, possessing and selling; and we held that the receipt and possession of the bills were no more than incidents of the sale, and might not be prosecuted as independent crimes. We fail to see any such question or any inconsistency in the verdict, acquitting Pietraniello of receiving and selling, but convicting him of possessing. The jury may very well have been satisfied that he knew that the bills of which he was in possession were counterfeits, without being satisfied that he was a party to the sale in the sense that made him an accomplice: that is, they may have had doubts as to how far he did “in some sort associate himself with the venture” or “participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about” or “seek by his action to make it succeed.” 2 It is indeed doubtful whether he was more than a fetch-and-carry for Chiarella, who did his bidding in bringing the bills to Chi-arella’s apartment, but had no interest in the sale, even assuming that he knew they were to be sold. The acquittal upon the conspiracy count is indeed consistent only with that assumption. We cannot see that Sealfon v. United States, 332 U.S. 575, 68 S.Ct. 237, 92 L.Ed. 180, has any bearing upon the question.

Motion denied.

1

. United States v. Chiarella, 2 Cir., 184 F.2d 903.

2

. Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619, 69 S.Ct. 766, 770, 93 L.Ed. 919.
§ 54.613 Eligible equipment. ( a ) Both individual and consortium applicants may receive support for network equipment necessary to make functional an eligible service supported under the Healthcare Connect Fund Program.
( b ) Consortium applicants may also receive support for network equipment necessary to manage, control, or maintain an eligible service or a dedicated health care broadband network. Support for network equipment is not available for networks that are not dedicated to health care.
( c ) Network equipment eligible for support includes the following: ( 1 ) Equipment that terminates a carrier's or other provider's transmission facility and any router/switch that is directly connected to either the facility or the terminating equipment. This includes equipment required to light dark fiber, or equipment necessary to connect dedicated health care broadband networks or individual health care providers to middle mile or backbone networks;
( 2 ) Computers, including servers, and related hardware (*e.g.,* printers, scanners, laptops) that are used exclusively for network management;
( 3 ) Software used for network management, maintenance, or other network operations, and development of software that supports network management, maintenance, and other network operations;
( 4 ) Costs of engineering, furnishing (*i.e.,* as delivered from the manufacturer), and installing network equipment; and
( 5 ) Equipment that is a necessary part of health care provider-owned network facilities.
( d ) Additional limitations: Support for network equipment is limited to equipment: ( 1 ) Purchased or leased by a Consortium Leader or eligible health care provider; and
( 2 ) Used for health care purposes.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50288 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MIGUEL MENDIETA-GOMEZ, also known as Jorge Mendieta-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-03-CR-293-ALL-LY

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Miguel MendietaGomez concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D August 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
SALARY ADJUSTMENTS




 Exhibit 10(d) 
 SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
 Set forth below are the 2007 annual salaries for the named
executive officers that will be reimbursed by the Company to AMI under a Management and Operating Agreement between the companies: 
  

				
	 	  	2007 Salary1
	 Jerry A. Newby
	  	$	340,687
		
	 C. Lee Ellis
	  	$	232,924
		
	 Herman T. Watts
	  	$	167,551
		
	 Stephen G. Rutledge
	  	$	161,159
		
	 William B. Harper, Jr.
	  	$	226,558



	 1
	 The 2007 salary figures assume
that the percentage of salary reimbursed by the Company to AMI will remain at the same level as 2006. The amounts reimbursed to AMI by the Company could change in the future.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 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 E-LOAN, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Matthew Roberts, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Matthew Roberts Matthew Roberts
Chief Financial Officer

August 9, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to E-LOAN, Inc. and will be retained by E-LOAN, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
-1- 



    	 



    








    	-2- 



    	 



    








    	-3- 



    	 



    








    	-4- 



    	 



    








    	-5- 



    	 



    

 






    	-6- 



    	 



    








    	-7- 



    	 



    








    	-8- 



    	 



    








    	-9- 



    	 



    








    	-10-
#### § 32.6621 Call completion services.

This account shall include costs incurred in helping customers place and complete calls, except directory assistance. This includes handling and recording; intercept; quoting rates, time and charges; and all other activities involved in the manual handling of calls.

[69 FR 44607, July 27, 2004]
No. 11-5691.

#### Montoya *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5590.

#### Moeller *v.*Harris, Attorney General of California, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9521.

#### King *v.*Stevenson, Warden.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
TEVEIN WATSON,

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. 1D17-3051

Opinion filed September 28, 2017.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

Tevein Watson, pro se, Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

ROBERTS, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCEDHULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM US
SEARCH.COM INC.'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          11,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      191
<ALLOWANCES>                                       102
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,454
<PP&E>                                           4,023
<DEPRECIATION>                                     453
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,205
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,460
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,205
<SALES>                                         13,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,368
<CGS>                                            6,253
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,679)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.88)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 848 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 848

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 4 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
          For the relief of Sepandan Farnia and Farbod Farnia.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SEPANDAN FARNIA AND FARBOD 
              FARNIA.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Sepandan Farnia and Farbod 
Farnia shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Sepandan Farnia or Farbod Farnia 
enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment 
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Sepandan Farnia and Farbod 
Farnia, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
reduce by two, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 3, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# Dr. Gwyneth Sutherlin Named Director of UC2

/ Published Feb. 29, 2024
February 29, 2024, 
UC2 is thrilled to announce that after a thorough search, Dr. Gwyneth Sutherlin has been named the new Director of UC2, the DoD University Consortium for Cybersecurity. Dr. Sutherlin brings a wealth of expertise and experience, as a scholar, researcher, and leader, and we are confident she will lead UC2 to new heights.

Dr. Sutherlin is an expert in artificial intelligence ethics, cognitive linguistics, and cross-cultural analysis. She is an acclaimed researcher and scholar with a long resume supporting national security and DoD organizations, and a talent for building connections between organizations.

During her tenure as Interim Director, Dr. Sutherlin led the organization through a significant refocusing and rebranding initiative, developing a new mission statement and vision in partnership with UC2 stakeholders to integrate cyber workforce development and research ethics. She will continue this important work as Director, working to hone and highlight UC2’s place in the DoD cybersecurity research landscape.

Congratulations again to Dr. Sutherlin. UC2 looks forward to sharing more soon about our commitment to communication, collaboration, and access in support of DoD’s cyber security priorities.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D13-4464

_____________________________

TYLER SHERMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

James C. Hankinson, Judge.

May 16, 2019

ON REMAND FROM FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

PER CURIAM.

We twice earlier affirmed Appellant’s separate convictions for 

solicitation (in violation of section 847.0135(3)(a), Florida 

Statutes), and traveling to meet a minor after solicitation (in 

violation of section 847.0135(4)(a)). See Sherman v. State, 160 So.

3d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Sherman v. State, 247 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 

1st DCA 2015). The Florida Supreme Court has now quashed our 

more recent decision, remanding for reconsideration in light of Lee 

v. State, 258 So. 3d 1297 (Fla. 2018). See Sherman v. State, No. 

SC18-949 (Fla. Apr. 16, 2019). In Lee, the court held that “to 

determine whether multiple convictions of solicitation of a minor, 

unlawful use of a two-way communications device, and traveling 

after solicitation of a minor are based upon the same conduct for 
2

purposes of double jeopardy, the reviewing court should consider 

only the charging document.” 258 So. 3d at 1299. Applying that 

rule here, we must reverse the lesser conviction. On remand, the 

trial court should resentence for the remaining conviction. We 

otherwise affirm.

REVERSED in part; AFFIRMED in part. 

WOLF and WINSOR, JJ., concur; MAKAR, J., concurs in result only.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Ethan Andrew Way of Gillis Way & Campbell, Tallahassee, for 

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
174P15

#### Carlton Clark, Jr. v. Susan Belmain Dyer

1. Pit’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Decision of COA (COA13-1230)

1. Denied

2. Pit’s Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of District Court of Hoke County

2. Denied
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Donald G. McGREGOR.

No. 14289.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 1951.

Drake Watson, U. S. Atty., and William J. Costello, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Arthur J. Freund, St. Louis, Mo., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court dismissed, on motion of appellant and consent of appellee.
§ 105-68.865 How long may my debarment last? ( a ) If the debarring official decides to debar you, your period of debarment will be based on the seriousness of the cause(s) upon which your debarment is based. Generally, debarment should not exceed three years. However, if circumstances warrant, the debarring official may impose a longer period of debarment.
( b ) In determining the period of debarment, the debarring official may consider the factors in § 105-68.860. If a suspension has preceded your debarment, the debarring official must consider the time you were suspended.
( c ) If the debarment is for a violation of the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, your period of debarment may not exceed five years.
Order entered February 5 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01273
- CV EVANGELINA AMARO, Appellant

V. ROBERTO AMARO, SR., Appellee On Appeal from the 330th J udicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 17
- 11611



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated December 9, 2019, we informed appellant the court reporter notified us that the reporter’s record had not been filed because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the reporter’s record had been requested and th at appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay
for the record or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the
appea l being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding thestatus of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted w ithout a

reporter’s record. Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this orde r.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4601 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4601

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
             coastwise trade for the vessel CYGNE SAUVAGE.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 1994

  Mr. Brooks introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
   documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
             coastwise trade for the vessel CYGNE SAUVAGE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 
46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel CYGNE SAUVAGE (United 
States official number 685100).

                                 <all>
```