alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ardeth C. FINLEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Diana Stacy DENSFORD; Pamela Sue Mckie; John Schultz; Steven Nie-haus; Joseph Bamberger, Judge; St. Joseph Orphanage; John G. Wright; Elizabeth Shaw; Franklin Jewel; Elizabeth Myerscough; David E. Spe-nard; Perry T. Ryan; Terry Vannars-dale, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-5997.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 17, 2004.

Ardeth C. Finley, Jr., West Liberty, KY, pro se.

Before ROGERS and COOK, Circuit Judges; and SCHWARZER, District Judge.*

The Honorable William W. Schwarzer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

*138
      *ORDER*

Ardeth C. Finley, Jr., a Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

In 1993, Finley was convicted of two counts of first-degree sodomy committed against his sons. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison for each count, to be served consecutively. In his complaint, Finley claims that the named defendants, all involved in his criminal prosecution, 1) maliciously prosecuted him, and 2) violated his rights under the United States Constitution, specifically, the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks monetary relief. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) in light of the holding in *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). This appeal followed.

The district court’s order is reviewed de novo. *See McGore v. Wrigglesworth,*114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997). Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Finley’s complaint because Finley’s complaint is barred by *Heck.*In *Heck,*the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner cannot make a cognizable claim under § 1983 for an alleged unconstitutional conviction or for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid” unless a prisoner shows that the conviction or sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” *Id.*at 486-87. Furthermore, the claim is not cognizable and must be dismissed whether the plaintiff seeks to obtain monetary damages or to attack the validity of his confinement. *Id.*at 487; *see also Preiser v. Rodriguez,*411 U.S. 475, 488-90, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).

As Finley’s conviction has not been invalidated, any ruling on Finley’s arguments would call into question the validity of his conviction. Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing Finley’s civil rights complaint. *Heck,*512 U.S. at 486-87.

Accordingly, the district court’s order is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1

  

THIRD AMENDMENT

 TO THE

CONSUMERS NATIONAL BANK 

SALARY CONTINUATION AGREEMENT 

DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2011

FOR

RALPH LOBER

 

 

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT is adopted this 3rd day of October, 2016 by and between Consumers National Bank, a nationally-chartered commercial bank located in Minerva, Ohio (the "Company") and Ralph Lober (the "Executive").

 

 

The Company and the Executive executed the Salary Continuation Agreement on February 11, 2011 (the "Agreement").

 

The undersigned hereby amend the Agreement for the purpose of changing the amount of the death benefit. Therefore, the following change shall be made:

 

Section 3.1.1 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following:

 

	 	
3.1.1 
	
Amount of Benefit. The annual benefit under this Section 3.1 is the same amount that would have been paid under Section 2.1 as if the Executive remained employed to the Normal Retirement Age and the Base Salary increased by 3.0% per year from the date of the Executive's death until Normal Retirement Age.



 

 

IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the Company and the Executive hereby consent to this Third Amendment.

 

 

	
Executive:
	
 
	
 
	
CONSUMERS NATIONAL BANK
	
 

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
By
	 	
 

	
Ralph Lober
	
 
	
 
	
Title
#### § 73.4104 FM assignment policies and procedures.

See Report and Order, BC Docket 80-130, FCC 82-240, adopted May 20, 1982. 90 FCC 2d, 88; 47 FR 26625, June 21, 1982.

[47 FR 54448, Dec. 3, 1982]
Blackboard Collaborate Instructions

Blackboard collaborate is a web conferencing tool useable within any blackboard 

class. 

System Requirements

Check to make sure you have a supported OS and a supported version of Java 

running. Click here.

For the best experience, ensure that your microphone and web cam are working. 

If you don’t have one, or the other or neither, you can still communicate via text 

chat. 

Configure your microphone and web cam for Collaborate This will launch a test 

session of the Collaborate environment.

Accessing Collaborate

The course instructor will create a scheduled Collaborate session in the course. 

The session info will most likely be posted in an announcement or through email. 

To access a Collaborate session: 

1. Login to Blackboard, if you forgot your username or password, contact 

esolutions@ndu.edu. 

2. Click on your class in the ‘My Courses’ list

3. Click on Collaborate link in the main course navigation

4. Click on the session, you will be prompted to run a .jnlp (Java Network 

Launching Protocol) file go launch the session.

5. The Collaborate session will open in a new window
If Collaborate does not open: 

There are many reasons why Collaborate may not work on your system, from 

firewall configuration issues, to closed ports. The best resource for 

troubleshooting is here. You may need to contact your system administrator for 

assistance. 

Firewall, Port, and Proxy resources for Collaborate

Using Collaborate 

Blackboard Collaborate has many features to enrich your web conferencing 

experience. There is a short video explaining the interface and all the tools 

available to you. 

Click here

Please email any questions to esolutions@ndu.edu
#### § 64.1000 Scope.

This subpart is applicable only to rate-of-return carriers as defined in § 54.5 of this chapter receiving Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support as described in § 54.901 of this chapter.
###### Editorial Note on Part 74

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

#### § 74.2 General definitions.

*Broadcast network-entity.* A broadcast network-entity is an organization which produces programs available for simultaneous transmission by 10 or more affiliated broadcast stations and having distribution facilities or circuits available to such affiliated stations at least 12 hours each day.

*Cable network-entity.* A cable network-entity is an organization which produces programs available for simultaneous transmission by cable systems serving a combined total of at least 5,000,000 subscribers and having distribution facilities or circuits available to such affiliated stations or cable systems.

[51 FR 4601, Feb. 6, 1986]
§ 73.1590 Equipment performance measurements. ( a ) The licensee of each AM, FM, TV and Class A TV station, except licensees of Class D non-commercial educational FM stations authorized to operate with 10 watts or less output power, must make equipment performance measurements for each main transmitter as follows: ( 1 ) Upon initial installation of a new or replacement main transmitter.
( 2 ) Upon modification of an existing transmitter made under the provisions of § 73.1690, Modification of transmission systems, and specified therein.
( 3 ) Installation of AM stereophonic transmission equipment pursuant to § 73.128.
( 4 ) Installation of FM subcarrier or stereophonic transmission equipment pursuant to § 73.295, § 73.297, § 73.593 or § 73.597.
( 5 ) [Reserved]
( 6 ) Annually, for AM stations, with not more than 14 months between measurements.
( 7 ) When required by other provisions of the rules or the station license.
( b ) Measurements for spurious and harmonic emissions must be made to show compliance with the transmission system requirements of § 73.44 for AM stations; § 73.317 for FM stations and § 73.687 for TV stations. Measurements must be made under all conditions of modulation expected to be encountered by the station whether transmitting monophonic or stereophonic programs and providing subsidiary communications services.
( c ) TV visual equipment performance measurements must be made with the equipment adjusted for normal program operation at the transmitter antenna sampling port to yield the following information: ( 1 ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) Data showing that the waveform of the transmitted signal conforms to that specified by the standards for TV transmissions.
( 3 ) [Reserved]
( 4 ) Data showing envelope delay characteristics of the radiated signal.
( 5 ) Data showing the attenuation of spurious and harmonic radiation, if, after type acceptance, any changes have been made in the transmitter or associated equipment (filters, multiplexer, etc.) which could cause changes in its radiation products.
( d ) The data required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, together with a description of the equipment and procedure used in making the measurements, signed and dated by the qualified person(s) making the measurements, must be kept on file at the transmitter or remote control point for a period of 2 years, and on request must be made available during that time to duly authorized representatives of the FCC.
[47 FR 8589, Mar. 1, 1982, as amended at 51 FR 18450, May 20, 1986; 65 FR 30004, May 10, 2000; 89 FR 7255, Feb. 1, 2024]
No. 11-5249.

#### De Jesus Garcia *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
{"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":"18-1768: POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XySf44GqYF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-03-2022-18-1768-polaris-innovations-limited-v-us-order-18-1768-order-6-3-2022_1960244\/\">18-1768: POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-03-2022-18-1768-polaris-innovations-limited-v-us-order-18-1768-order-6-3-2022_1960244\/embed\/#?secret=XySf44GqYF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1768: POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. US [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"XySf44GqYF\" 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":"ORDER Posted: POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. US [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1768 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
No. 11-9508.

#### Kendrick *v.*Union Baptist Church et al.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4722 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4722

 To authorize appropriations for activities under the Deep Seabed Hard 
       Mineral Resources Act for fiscal years 1995 through 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 1994

Mr. Ortiz (for himself, Mr. Fields of Texas, Mr. Weldon, and Mr. Young 
of Alaska) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to 
the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Natural Resources, and 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize appropriations for activities under the Deep Seabed Hard 
       Mineral Resources Act for fiscal years 1995 through 1999.

    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 ``Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources 
Reauthorization Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 310 of the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (30 
U.S.C. 1470) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' after ``September 30, 1989,''; and
            (2) by inserting ``, and $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
        years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999'' after ``and 1994''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11-1042.

#### Kokenis *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
___________ No. 95-4178

___________ Barry Andre Wilburn, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Bill Terry, Classification * Officer, Cummins Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Carmen * McMahan, Nurse, Cummins Unit * Infirmary, Arkansas Department * of Correction (originally sued * as McHand); Yvonne Cole, Cummins * Unit Infirmary, Arkansas * Department of Correction * Appeal from the United States (originally sued as Cole); Ella * District Court for the Casady, Nurse, Cummins Unit * Eastern District of Arkansas. Infirmary, Arkansas Department * of Correction (originally sued * [UNPUBLISHED] as Cassity), * * Appellees. * *

---------------------- * * Barry Andre Wilburn, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Floyd McHan, originally sued as * Major McHan, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 20, 1996 Filed: June 25, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

### The Honorab le H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge 1 

### for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was r eferred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2- PER CURIAM.

BarryA ndre Wilburn appeals from the district court's orde r 1 dismi ssinghis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed th e recordand the parties' briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
712 P.2d 569

#### The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cornelius R. LARSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15747.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Dec. 12, 1985.

*869August H. Cahill, Jr., Office of Ada Co. Public Defender, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Hon. Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent.

SHEPARD, Justice.

Appellant Larson was charged, tried and convicted of aggravated assault, I.C. §§ 18-901, 18-905, and was sentenced therefore to an indeterminate period of three years confinement to run concurrently with a previous conviction. The sole assertion of error on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. We *affirm.*

The testimony, albeit somewhat controverted, sustains the following scenerio. Appellant and another person uninvited entered the victim’s residence and began rummaging through the refrigerator. The wife of the victim objected, and the victim went to the kitchen to remonstrate with Larson. Larson struck the victim, rendering him unconscious, and then beat him on the head with a beer bottle. When the victim’s wife attempted to interfere, Larson seized another bottle from the refrigerator and began beating the victim on the head. That bottle broke, cutting the victim’s head. When the victim’s wife attempted to get assistance from the police, Larson attempted to prevent her from doing so. The victim sustained severe head injuries. Larson testified during the trial, and did not deny he had assaulted the victim, but rather that he had no memory of it because of alleged intoxication. We hold that the evidence amply sustains the conviction.

Although appellant does not assert any abuse of discretion in sentencing, it is worthy of note that the apparent severity of the sentence was well within the discretion of the sentencing court in view of Larson’s previous record and the presentence report.

The conviction and the sentence of the lower court is affirmed.

DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES, BISTLINE, and HUNTLEY, JJ., concur.
#### § 3.46 Use of gold francs.

An accounting authority must accept accounts presented to it from foreign administrations in gold francs. These gold francs must be converted on the date of receipt of the bill to the applicable Special Drawing Right (SDR) rate (as published by the International Monetary Fund) on that date utilizing the linking coefficient of 3.061 gold francs = 1 SDR. An equivalent amount in U.S. dollars must be paid to the foreign administration. Upon written concurrence by the FCC, an accounting authority may make separate agreements, in writing, with foreign administrations or their agents for alternative settlement methods, in accordance with ITU-T Recommendation D.195.
No. 10-1413.

#### Srivastava *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 10-10751.

#### Givens *v.*Randolph et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 15.525 Coordination requirements. ( a ) UWB imaging systems require coordination through the FCC before the equipment may be used. The operator shall comply with any constraints on equipment usage resulting from this coordination.
( b ) The users of UWB imaging devices shall supply operational areas to the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, which shall coordinate this information with the Federal Government through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The information provided by the UWB operator shall include the name, address and other pertinent contact information of the user, the desired geographical area(s) of operation, and the FCC ID number and other nomenclature of the UWB device. If the imaging device is intended to be used for mobile applications, the geographical area(s) of operation may be the state(s) or county(ies) in which the equipment will be operated. The operator of an imaging system used for fixed operation shall supply a specific geographical location or the address at which the equipment will be operated. This material shall be submitted to Frequency Coordination Branch, OET, Federal Communications Commission, at the address of the FCC's main office indicated in 47 CFR 0.401(a), ATTN: UWB Coordination.
( c ) The manufacturers, or their authorized sales agents, must inform purchasers and users of their systems of the requirement to undertake detailed coordination of operational areas with the FCC prior to the equipment being operated.
( d ) Users of authorized, coordinated UWB systems may transfer them to other qualified users and to different locations upon coordination of change of ownership or location to the FCC and coordination with existing authorized operations.
( e ) The FCC/NTIA coordination report shall identify those geographical areas within which the operation of an imaging system requires additional coordination or within which the operation of an imaging system is prohibited. If additional coordination is required for operation within specific geographical areas, a local coordination contact will be provided. Except for operation within these designated areas, once the information requested on the UWB imaging system is submitted to the FCC no additional coordination with the FCC is required provided the reported areas of operation do not change. If the area of operation changes, updated information shall be submitted to the FCC following the procedure in paragraph (b) of this section.
( f ) The coordination of routine UWB operations shall not take longer than 15 business days from the receipt of the coordination request by NTIA. Special temporary operations may be handled with an expedited turn-around time when circumstances warrant. The operation of UWB systems in emergency situations involving the safety of life or property may occur without coordination provided a notification procedure, similar to that contained in § 2.405(a) through (e) of this chapter, is followed by the UWB equipment user.
[67 FR 34856, May 16, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 19751, Apr. 22, 2003; 85 FR 64406, Oct. 13, 2020]
#### § 73.333 Engineering charts.

This section consists of the following Figures 1, 1a, 2, and slider 4 and 5.

Note:

The figures reproduced herein, due to their small scale, are not to be used in connection with material submitted to the F.C.C.

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.085/EC01MR91.085_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.085/EC01MR91.085_original_size.png)
[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.086/EC01MR91.086_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.086/EC01MR91.086_original_size.png)
[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.087/EC01MR91.087_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.087/EC01MR91.087_original_size.png)
[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.088/EC01MR91.088_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.088/EC01MR91.088_original_size.png)
[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.089/EC01MR91.089_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.089/EC01MR91.089_original_size.png)
[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.090/EC01MR91.090_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC01MR91.090/EC01MR91.090_original_size.png)

(Secs. 4, 5, 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1066, 1068, 1082 ([47 U.S.C. 154](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/47/154), [155](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/47/155), [303](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/47/303)))

[[28 FR 13623](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/28-FR-13623), Dec. 14, 1963, as amended at [35 FR 2591](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/35-FR-2591), Feb. 5, 1970; [40 FR 27679](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/40-FR-27679), July 1, 1975; [45 FR 28141](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/45-FR-28141), Apr. 28, 1980; [48 FR 29508](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/48-FR-29508), June 27, 1983; [49 FR 19670](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/49-FR-19670), May 9, 1984]

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At [42 FR 25736](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/42-FR-25736), May 19, 1977, in [§ 73.333](/on/2024-09-20/title-47/section-73.333), the effective date of Figures 4 and 5 was stayed indefinitely.