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 certified 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 parties filed a joint motion in this court, in which they ask us 

“to dismiss this case with prejudice, and without a prevailing 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.
- PA 78 1
- PA 78 2
- [Untitled]
- PA 78 4
- PA 78 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27.5
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,164
<SECURITIES>                                     9,884
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,260
<PP&E>                                           9,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,667
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            90
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,017
<SALES>                                         48,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,579
<CGS>                                           19,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (847)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,115
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,023
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,782
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4772 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4772

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
    at 215 South Evans Street in Greenville, North Carolina, as the 
   ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 215 
South Evans Street in Greenville, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 8, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     





103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4772

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
    at 215 South Evans Street in Greenville, North Carolina, as the 
   ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.`
§ 54.1019 Interim service and final service milestone reports. ( a ) A recipient authorized to receive 5G Fund support shall submit a report to the Administrator on or before March 1 after the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth service milestone deadlines established in § 54.1015(b) demonstrating that it has deployed service meeting the 5G Fund performance requirements specified in § 54.1015(c), which shall include the following: ( 1 ) Certifications to representative data submitted in the Digital Opportunity Data Collection or as part of FCC Form 477, as applicable, demonstrating mobile transmissions to and from the network that establish compliance with the 5G Fund coverage, speed, and latency requirements;
( 2 ) On-the-ground measurement tests to substantiate 5G broadband coverage data: ( i ) With at least three tests conducted per square kilometer, measured by overlaying a uniform grid of one square kilometer (1 km by 1 km) on the recipient's submitted in-vehicle 5G coverage maps within the area for which 5G Fund support was awarded;
( ii ) For a subset of drive-testable grid cells, such that the minimum percentage of drive-testable grid cells tested equals the minimum percentage of coverage required for each service buildout milestone (*i.e.,* interim milestones of 40 percent, 60 percent, and 80 percent, and the final milestone of 85 percent), with previously reported testing being cumulative; and
( iii ) Where a drive-testable grid cell is any grid cell that has more than the *de minimis* amount of total roads specified in a public notice, based upon the most recent roadway data from the U.S. Census Bureau available for this purpose, considering roads classified in the primary road (S1100), secondary road (S1200), local road (S1400), and service drive (S1640) categories.
( 3 ) Detailed cell-site and sector infrastructure information; and
( 4 ) Additional information as required by the Commission in a public notice.
( b ) All data submitted and certified to in compliance with a recipient's public interest obligations in the milestone report shall be in compliance with standards set forth in the applicable public notice and shall be certified by a professional engineer.
( c ) Each service milestone report shall be submitted solely via the Administrator's online portal.
( d ) All data submitted in and certified to in any service milestone report shall be subject to verification by the Administrator for compliance with the 5G Fund performance requirements specified in § 54.1015(c).
Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 85 FR 75822, Nov. 25, 2020,
§ 54.1019 was revised, however, paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) have a delayed effective date.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

TONY NIXON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 10461

D.C. No. 4:14

- cr

- 00668

- DCB

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2017 **

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS , Circuit Judges

.

Tony Nixon appeals his bench

- trial conviction and 18

- mon th sentence for

one count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for the purpose of financial gain,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I ) , (a)(1)(A)(ii), and (a)(1)(B)(i), and

two counts of transportation of illegal aliens for profit, in violat ion of 8 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# F ILED

JUL 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 10461

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

Nixon contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial

. He

has n ot shown that his counsel was constitutionally ineffect ive

. See Strickland v.

Washington

, 466 U.S. 668 , 694 (1984) (to establish that counsel was

constitutionally ineffective, defendant must show that counsel perfo rmed

deficiently and that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s

unprofessio nal errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

          I, Eric P. Graap, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Fauquier Bankshares, Inc., certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Fauquier Bankshares, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

|   | Date: November 14, 2003 |    /s/ Eric P. Graap |
|--------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|   |                    |                                     |  |
|   |                    |                                | Eric P. GraapSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

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 Fauquier Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Fauquier Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 11-9148.

#### Jones *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
?

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

100

100

50

100

100

100

100 100 100

50

50

50

50

50

100

100

100

100

100

§ ̈¦8

§ ̈¦8

¬«98 ¬«98

¬«98

¬«98

E V A N H E W E S H W Y

D E S E R T R D

E V A N H E W E S H W Y

CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

IMPERIAL CO

East

Mesa

Power

Drop

NumberThree

Power

Drop Number Four

Experimental

Farm Number One

Holtville

East

Midway

Well NW

Bonds

Corner

Glamis

SW

Glamis

SE

Midway

Well

000m

3613

36

36

14

16

24

12

36

3615

36

N

36

36

36

23

18

36

36

24

12

25

20

21

17

36

36

N

36

22

36

000m

19

665 666 667 669 670 671 6 000m 73 E

6

74 6

66

6 75

667 668 669 670 671 672 673 6

1

1

74

000

000

900

810

6

850

000 FEET 75

FEET

870 000 FEET

6 6

FEET

42'

40' 40'

42'30" 30"

12'

45'

115°15' 30" 115°

12'30" 10' 115°

32°45'

32°

115° 07'30"

10' 07'30"

15'

32°

32°37'30" 37'30"

3613

36

36

3616

15

36

36

19

17

20

36

14

3618

22

36

36

36

36

21

23

665000mE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CALIFORNIA

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

MIDWAY WELL NW, CA-BCN

2012

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

MIDWAY WELL NW QUADRANGLE

CALIFORNIA-BAJA CALIFORNIA NORTE

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.1

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

Imagery......................................................NAIP, May 2010

Roads................................................©2006-2011 TomTom

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2011

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010

Contours.............................National Elevation Dataset, 2009

Boundaries..............Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2010

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 11S

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: California Coordinate System of 1983

(zone 6)

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

PS

11S

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2012 MAGNETIC NORTH

DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 59 ́

17 MILS

11° 37 ́

207 MILS
#### § 90.223 RF exposure.

Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

[85 FR 18151, Apr. 1, 2020]
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4714 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4714

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the exception to 
         the market discount rules for tax-exempt obligations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 30, 1994

  Mr. Cardin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the exception to 
         the market discount rules for tax-exempt obligations.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF EXCEPTION FROM MARKET DISCOUNT RULES FOR TAX-
              EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1278(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining market discount bond) is amended--
            (1) by adding at the end of subparagraph (B) the following 
        new clause:
                            ``(iv) Tax-exempt obligations.--Any tax-
                        exempt obligation (as defined in section 
                        1275(a)(3)).'', and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating 
        subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Sections 1276(a)(4) and 1278(b)(1) of such Code are 
        each amended by striking ``103,''.
            (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 1278(a)(4) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``or, in the case of a tax-exempt 
        obligation'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to obligations purchased (within the meaning of section 
1272(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) after April 30, 1993.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 7, 2006, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute: Cooperative Research Group on High Efficiency Durable Gasoline Engine (“HEDGE”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Auburn Hills, MI has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HEDGE intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 10, 2005, HEDGE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 7, 2005 (70 FR 39339).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 16, 2006. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 28, 2006 (71 FR 36830).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 06-7518 Filed 9-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Case 16-24864 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:29:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 8
Case 16-24864 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:29:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 8
Case 16-24864 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:29:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 8
Case 16-24864 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:29:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 8
Case 16-24864 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:29:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 8
Case 16-24864 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:29:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 8
Case 16-24864 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:29:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 8
Case 16-24864 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:29:24 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT
10-6


SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


We
pay each of our directors who are not employees of Power-One, Inc. (“Non-Employee
Directors”) as follows:


Annual
retainer: $20,000


Supplemental
annual retainers:


Audit
Committee—Chair: $15,000


Other Committee—Chair: $5,000


Meeting fees paid for attendance (Board or Committee):


In person: $3,000/day


Telephonic Meetings: $1,000/day for meetings over two
hours that involve substantial time and preparation.


Only one daily meeting fee is paid on days when multiple
meetings of separate Committees, or Committee(s) and Board are held on same
day.  We also reimburse our Non-Employee
Directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with
attending board and committee meetings.


Newly-elected Non-Employee Directors receive a grant of
12,000 restricted stock units upon their election to the Board.  These units vest ratably over the three-year
period following the grant.  Non-Employee
Directors continuing in office after our annual meeting each year receive a
grant of 4,000 restricted stock units on the annual meeting date, provided that
they have served on the Board for not less than 180 days as of the first day of
the month in which the annual meeting occurs. 
Stock units granted to Non-Employee Directors are paid in shares of our
common stock following the vesting date.
#### §§ 95.581-95.585 [Reserved]
No. 11-9147.

#### Staten *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.