alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dalroy N. WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Correction, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-6313.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 27, 2004.

Decided June 3, 2004.

*485Dalroy N. Washington, Appellant pro se.

Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Dalroy N. Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Washington’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Submitted on record and briefs December 13, 1993,

affirmed February 2, 1994

#### BRYAN COOK, *Petitioner, v.*OREGON STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT, *Respondent.*

(1192-316F; CA A77814)

868 P2d 16

Gary D. Babcock filed the brief for petitioner.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Stephanie S. Andrus, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs, Judge, and Durham, Judge pro tempore.

DURHAM, J. pro tempore.

*251DURHAM, J.

pro tempore

Petitioner seeks judicial review of a Department of Corrections order imposing discipline for violation of prison rules prohibiting “Assault I” and possession of a dangerous weapon. We address only his argument that there is no substantial evidence that he committed an assault.

OAR 291-105-015(2)(a) provides that an inmate commits “Assault I” if he “causes physical injury to another person and uses a dangerous/deadly weapon.” The hearings officer found, on the basis of substantial evidence in the record, that an inmate, Pilcher, was emotionally distraught due to his father’s death and told petitioner that he wished to cause injury to himself. Petitioner agreed to obtain a razor blade and asked Pilcher to accuse him of causing the injury in order to enhance his image as a thug in the eyes of the other inmates. Using an instrument provided by petitioner,1 Pilcher cut himself and claimed that petitioner had assaulted him.

Petitioner argues, from dictionary definitions of the term “assault,” that providing a weapon to another to permit the self-infliction of an injury is not an assault. We reject that argument. The disciplinary rule does not incorporate the requirements of a criminal or civil assault, despite its use of the term “assault” in its title. The rule requires proof that petitioner *caused*serious physical injury, not that he directed force toward another, or created a well-founded fear of imminent peril in another. The hearings officer explained that petitioner exploited Pilcher’s mental instability and provided the instrument that produced the injury. Those findings establish a causal link between petitioner’s conduct and the resulting injury. The record supports the findings.

Affirmed.

1

 Petitioner claims that he obtained a razor, but flushed it down a toilet before Pilcher injured himself. Pilcher testified that he used a piece of glass to cause the injury. That discrepancy is irrelevant, because petitioner does not challenge the hearings officer’s finding that Pilcher injured himself with a weapon provided by petitioner.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

Chase Bank USA, National Association

Chase Credit Card Master Trust

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Chase Bank USA, National Association (the Bank), as Servicer, pursuant to the Fifth Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as
of December 19, 2007 (as amended and supplemented from time to time, the Agreement) between the Bank, as transferor and servicer (in such capacity, the Servicer) and The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee, does hereby
certify that:



| | 1. | The Bank is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | A review of the Servicers activities during the calendar year ended December 31, 2011 (the Reporting Period) and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
Reporting Period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate this 29th day of March 2012.



CHASE BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as ServicerBy:

/s/ Keith W. SchuckName:  Keith W. SchuckTitle:    President
### Request for Information Ro bert Crum (FAA-2015-3446) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Crum: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3446). This information is necessary for the Federa l Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your p etition.

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) wh ich is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your inte ntion by the requested response date listed below. Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information de scribed above by December 8, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999. FAA Office o f Rulemakin g Sent : T uesday , November 24, 2015 9:11 AM To: info@patmanhat.com
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Dorman Products, Inc.:

We consent
to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-52946, 33-56492, 333-157150 and 333-160979) on Form S-8 of Dorman Products, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated March 3, 2011, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of Dorman Products, Inc. as of December 25, 2010 and December 26, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 25, 2010, and the related financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 25, 2010, which reports appear in the December 25, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of
Dorman Products, Inc.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|KPMG LLP                                
|                                        
|Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 3, 2011
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 9
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 9
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 9
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 9
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 9
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 9
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 9
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 9
Case 16-24867 Doc 1 Filed 08/02/16 Entered 08/02/16 16:30:36 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 9
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.227 Adjustment of management measures. In accordance with the framework procedures of the FMP for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region, the RA may establish or modify the following: ( a ) *South Atlantic coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitats.* Definitions of essential fish habitat and essential fish habitat HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.
( b ) [Reserved]
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 annual report of Entorian Technologies Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, W. Kirk Patterson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify pursuant to Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2010                                               
|                                                                   
|/s/ W. Kirk Patterson                                              
|W. Kirk Patterson Senior
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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. LORENZO VALDEZ

- GARATE,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50252
D.C. No. 3:15

- cr - 00737

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 13, 2018 **
Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Valdez

- Garate appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 65

- month sentence imposed upon remand following his guilty

- plea conviction for importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affir m.

* 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). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50252

Valdez

- Garate contends that the district court misapplied the minor role Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, by failing to compare him to his co

- participants in
the offense and instead comparing him to hypothetical average drug couriers

. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States
v. Gasca

- Ruiz , 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Valdez

- Garate ’s contention, when analyzing the five factors under the Guideline, the district court considered the two recruiters he identified as well as other likely participants in the offense

. See United States v. Quintero

Leyva , 823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016). Keeping those co

- participants “in
mind , ” the court concluded that Valdez

- Garate had failed to show that he was “substantially less culpab le than the average participant in the criminal activity. ”
See U.S. S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A)

. The court correctly identified and applied the correct legal standard and , in light of the totality of the circumstances , did not abuse its discretion by denying the adjustment

. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C).
AFFIRMED.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .gov**
A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  About OUSD(C)    -  OUSD(C) Leadership             
  -  Functional Statements             
  -  OUSD(C) History 
-  FMR		 
-  Budget Materials		 
-  Budget Execution		 
-  Financial Management    -  DoD FM Strategy             
  -  Improving Financial Performance             
  -  Reports             
  -  Regulations 
-  PPBE Reform		 

# Financial Management

## Reports

Accounting Policy Guidance for Implementing Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) Procedures
The use of the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) was extended through December 31, 2025 by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2017, Public Law 114-328. The purpose of this guidance is to provide procedures for funding, accounting for, disbursing and reporting retirement payments for those chosen for early retirement under the provisions of TERA.

----

                                          - About DoD 
                                          - Top Issues 
                                          - News 
                                          - Photos & Videos 
                                          - Military/DoD Websites 
                                          - DoD Inspector General 
                                          - Link Disclaimer 
                                          - Recovery Act 
                                          - FOIA 
                                          - USA.gov 
                                          - No FEAR Act 
                                          - Join the Military 
                                          - DoD Careers 
                                          - Privacy & Security 
                                          - Web Policy 
                                          - Accessibility/Section 508 
                                          - Site Map 

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### § 38.3 Executive authority; duration.

The executive authority of the Secretary of the Interior over the Midway Islands will be exercised by the Service Regional Director. The executive authority of the Service Regional Director may be redelegated to the Refuge Manager, Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 532 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 532

    To provide for the consolidation of government foreign language 
programs into the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California to 
                 form a new Federal Language Institute.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 1993

 Mr. Panetta introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly 
to the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Permanent Select 
           Committee on Intelligence, and Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the consolidation of government foreign language 
programs into the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California to 
                 form a new Federal Language Institute.

    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 ``Federal Foreign Language Institute 
Consolidation Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSOLIDATION.

    (a) In General.--Each program to learn a foreign language of each 
agency and department of the executive branch shall be consolidated in 
accordance with this section into the Defense Language Institute in 
Monterey, California.
    (b) Supervision and Time.--The consolidation required by subsection 
(a) shall be carried out--
            (1) under the supervision of the Secretary of Defense, and
            (2) within 5 years of the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.
    (c) Coordination.--The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 
State, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Center 
for Advancement of Language Learning shall coordinate in the 
consolidation required by subsection (a).
    (d) New Institute.--The consolidation required by subsection (a) 
shall be placed in a new Federal Language Institute. Upon completion of 
the consolidation under subsection (a), the Federal Language Institute 
shall incorporate the Defense Language Institute.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.3

                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 on Form 10-Q of Luigino's, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended July 14, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2002 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Thomas W.
Knuesel, Chief Financial Officer 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:

         3.       The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
                  (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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




By: /s/ Thomas W. Knuesel
    ------------------------------



Thomas W. Knuesel
Chief Financial Officer
Luigino's, Inc.
August 26, 2002
February 7, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ZIAD ELAAZAMI, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00120-CV V.

LAWLER FOODS, LTD., Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Lawler Foods, Ltd., 

signed November 19, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected 

the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the judgment of the court 

below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for entry of a judgment consistent with the 

jury’s verdict and for a determination of attorney’s fees.

We order appellee, Lawler Foods, Ltd., to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1182 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-SW-062-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
# EUR-Lex - 11957A189 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11957A189

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( E.A.E.C. - EURATOM ), TITLE FIVE - GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE 189 **

*

*

++++

ARTICLE 189

THE SEAT OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY SHALL BE DETERMINED BY COMMON ACCORD OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES .