alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The HONORABLE JEAN C. HAMILTON, Chief Judge of the United

1

States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-2628

___________

Richard Roe, *

*

Appellant, *

* 

v. * 

* 

Paul K. Delo; Don Roper; Al *

Luebbers; Charles Harris; * Appeal from the United States

James Reed; Danny Berry; * District Court for the

Brian O'Connell; John H. * Eastern District of Missouri.

Grohmann; Phillip Nixon; *

Linda Wilkson; Greg Wilson; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Larry Youngman; Greg Dunn; *

Fred Johnson; William *

Armontrout; Dora Schriro, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: March 6, 1996

 Filed: March 12, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Richard Roe filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against

numerous prison officials, alleging that he was issued a false and

retaliatory conduct violation and placed in temporary administrative

segregation confinement (TASC) and administrative segregation (ad seg)

without due process, and denied access to the courts and adequate exercise

while in ad seg. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 1

defendants, and Roe appeals. 
-2-

Roe was initially placed in TASC for nonpunitive, investigative

reasons following violent prison disturbances; thus, he had no right to a

prior hearing. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983); Brown-El v.

Delo, 969 F.2d 644, 647 (8th Cir. 1992). His due process rights were

satisfied when he received notice of the reason for the transfer, the

opportunity to make a statement, and informal reviews which resulted in his

continued placement in TASC and ad seg. See Hewitt, 459 U.S. at 476. 

Roe was subsequently found guilty of a conduct violation. Defendants

made an unrefuted showing there was some evidence to support this

disciplinary action. See Brown v. Frey, 807 F.2d 1407, 1412-13 (8th Cir.

1986). Roe's claim of retaliatory discipline fails because he did not show

any prior or pending lawsuits or grievances against any defendant when the

conduct violation issued. See Smith v. Erickson, 961 F.2d 1387, 1388 (8th

Cir. 1992) (per curiam). His due process claim that he received a false

conduct violation therefore fails as well. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870

F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). Finally, Roe failed to show he was

prejudiced by the alleged denial of access to the courts, see Berdella v.

Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 210 (8th Cir. 1992), and failed to show a sufficiently

serious deprivation of exercise. See Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 448-

49 (8th Cir. 1992).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Defendants' motion

to dismiss is denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 202 (Thursday, October 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61729-61730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8767]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


TRICARE; Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed 
Services (CHAMPUS); Fiscal Year 2007 Diagnosis Related Group (DRF) 
Updates

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of DRG revised rates.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 12, 2006 the Department of Defense published a 
notice on Fiscal Year 2007 Diagnosis

[[Page 61730]]

Related Group (DRF) Updates. This notice corrects an error for TRICARE 
DRG base payment rate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann N. Fazzini, Medical Benefits and 
Reimbursement Systems (TMA), telephone 303-676-3803.

Correction

    In Federal Register at 71 FR 60112, the heading of the notice, DRF 
is corrected to read DRG.
    At 71 FR 60113, paragraph E, $22.639 is corrected to read $22,649. 
All other information remains unchanged.

    Dated: October 13, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 06-8767 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
Date of 

report 

1967 

June 12 

~tntttr nf tqr luitr~ itatts 

NINETIETH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION-Began January 10, 1967 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. VALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HAcKETT, Executive Clerk 

Tuesday, June 13, 1967 

NOMINATION 

Calendar Message Name of nominee Otm!t Predeoesaor 

No. No. 

U.S. NAVY 

505 233 Adm. Thomas H Moorer, Chief of N a vat ~nsUS. Navy. in the Department of the 

Navy for a term of 2 

years, pursuant to title 

10, Umted States Code, 

sec. 5081. 

65-022--67--No.57 

U S GO\IERNMENT PRINTIN.G OFFIU 1961
§ 228.47 General terms and conditions of contracts and permits. ( a ) *Disposal of designated mineral materials.* Only those specified mineral materials found within the area designated in the contract or permit may be extracted and removed.
( b ) *Unauthorized removal (trespass) of mineral materials.* The removal of mineral materials from National Forest lands, except when authorized in accordance with applicable law and regulations of the Department of Agriculture, is prohibited (36 CFR 261.9).
( c ) *Conservation.* Mineral material contracts and permits must contain provisions to ensure the efficient removal and conservation of the mineral material.
( d ) *Improvements.* Contracts and permits must contain provisions for removal or Government retention of improvements.
( e ) *Use of existing National Forest development roads.* The authorized officer may require purchasers and permittees to obtain appropriate road-use permits, make deposits for or perform their commensurate share of road maintenance, and comply with road-use rules contained in 36 CFR part 212, depending upon their planned extent of road use.
( f ) *Reclamation.* Requirements for reclamation of areas disturbed by mineral material operations must be included in contracts and permits, except for disposals from community sites and common-use areas.
§ 1254.32 What rules apply to public access use of the Internet on NARA-supplied computers? ( a ) Public access computers (workstations) are available for Internet use in all NARA research rooms. The number of workstations varies per location. We provide these workstations for research purposes on a first-come-first-served basis. When others are waiting to use the workstation, we may impose a 30-minute time limit on the use of the equipment.
( b ) You should not expect privacy while using these workstations. These workstations are operated and maintained on a United States Government system, and activity may be monitored to protect the system from unauthorized use. By using this system, you expressly consent to such monitoring and the reporting of unauthorized use to the proper authorities.
( c ) You may not use these workstations to gain access to entertainment or other inappropriate Web sites in our research rooms. You also may not use these workstations to conduct private business not related to your research or NARA holdings.
( d ) NARA provides at least one Internet access workstation in each facility that complies with the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, ensuring comparable accessibility to individuals with disabilities.
( e ) You may download information to a diskette and print materials, but the research room staff will furnish the diskettes and paper. You may not use personally owned diskettes on NARA personal computers. You may not load files or any type of software on these workstations.
EXHIBIT 32.2 SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Jane Morlok, Chief Financial Officer of Breda
Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Breda Telephone Corp. Date:  August
14, 2007. /s/ Jane
 MorlokJane Morlok, Chief
 Financial Officer E-4
#### § 72.54 Rehabilitation and Innovation grants—full application process.

Once a Rehabilitation or Innovation proposal has received a tentative grant offer, applicants will be responsible for compliance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations listed in OMB Circular A-102, including those specific Acts and Executive Orders listed in § 72.56 of these regulations. The applicant must also complete all documentation and other requirements specified by OMB circulars A-102, and A-95 within 120 days. Regional Offices of NPS will provide technical assistance to grantees in complying with these requirements. A grant will not be approved until the applicant is in compliance with the above requirements.
#### § 14.5 Nature of interest granted; settlement on right-of-way; rights of ingress and egress.
§ 254.33 Road rights-of-way. ( a ) Reserved or acquired road right-of-way parcels subject to conveyance under this subpart are limited to those which are substantially surrounded by lands not owned by the United States.
( b ) Forest Service officials shall consider public road system right-of-way needs based on National Forest transportation planning and State and local law before making any conveyance of rights-of-way.
( c ) Reimbursement will be required for the value of any improvements made by the United States or other highway authorities, unless waived by the Chief of the Forest Service.
#### Julius Barrette *vs.*Laurier & Ouimette.

January Term, 1897.

Present: Ross, C. J., Taft, Rowelt,, Tyube and Munson, JJ.

*Auditor's Report*— Exceptions.

The auditor first reported that a part of the account was chargeable to only one of the defendants, but how much he was unable to find, and allowed the whole account against both. On recommittal, he reported that he was unable to find any item that was not chargeable to the defendants jointly. *Held,*that this nullified the first finding and left both defendants liable for the whole.

Objections to the report, as against the evidence and for failure to comply with the order of recommittal, are not considered, since the questions do not appear to have been raised below.

Book Account. Heard on report and supplemental report at the April Term, 1896, Franklin County, *Start,*J., presiding.

Judgment for tbe plaintiff for the whole account. The defendants excepted.

*E. A. Ashland*and *H. N. Mott*for the defendants.

*D.ee & George*for the plaintiff.

Rowell, J.

The plaintiff carried on the meat business, and the defendants were partners in the grocery business. Defendants had assignments of the wages of a number of railroad men, who traded with the plaintiff on the defendants’ orders and pass-books. All of plaintiff’s account is properly chargeable to the defendants jointly, *510unless some of it is for meat sold to the defendant Ouimette for his individual use. In his original report the auditor allowed the whole account, but found that some of it was for meat thus sold, but he could not tell how much nor identify any item. But in his supplemental report he says he is unable to ascertain that any item is for meat thus sold. This nullifies his former finding on that point, and leaves his allowance of the whole account to stand, and makes it equivalent to a finding that all the items of the account are for sales to others on the defendants’ joint authority.

It is claimed that the auditor’s finding concerning Ouimette’s individual account is against the evidence, and that theretox'e the report ought to be set aside. It is also claimed that the auditor did not comply with the order of recommittal, and that therefore the report ought to be set aside. It is enough to say of these claims that it does not appear that the questions were raised below. The exceptions say that the case was heard on the report and supplemental x'eport.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Order entered August 7, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01223
- CV
MICHAEL MORFORD D/B/ A NEMAHA WATER SERVI CES, GEFFREY ARNOLD MCFALLS, INDIVIDUALL Y D/B/A NEMAHA WATER SERVICES, NEMAHA WATER SERVICES, LP, NEMAHA WATER SERVICES GP, L LC, NEMAHA WATER SERVICES OK
- 1702, LLC, AND NEMAH A SERVICES HOLDING C OMPANY, LLC, Appellant s V. ESPOSITO SECURITIES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 14
- 0579 5



### O RDER Appellants request that we also treat this appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus. We ABATE the mandamus proceeding pursuant to rule 7.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. This case is removed from the Court’s active docket until further order of this Court to allow the successor judge to reconsider the ruling of the trial court. The parties shall timely notify this Court of all events affecting the status of this case, including when the successor judge has ruled in accordance wi th rule 7.2(b). The parties shall file a status re port by August 28, 2015

.
/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE PRESIDING JUSTICE
§ 223.136 Debarment. ( a ) *General.* In accordance with the procedures in § 223.138, the debarring official may in the public interest, debar a purchaser for any of the causes listed in § 223.137. However, the existence of a cause for debarment does not necessarily require that the purchaser be debarred. In making any debarment decision, the debarring official shall consider the seriousness of the purchaser's acts or omissions and any mitigating factors.
( b ) *Effect of proposed debarment.* ( 1 ) Upon issuance of a notice of proposed debarment by the debarring official and until the final debarment decision is rendered, the Forest Service shall not solicit or consider bids from, award contracts to, approve a third party agreement with, renew or otherwise extend, except pursuant to the terms of a contract term adjustment, any contract with that purchaser. The Chief of the Forest Service or authorized representative may waive this exclusion upon a written determination identifying compelling reasons to continue doing business with that purchaser pending completion of debarment proceedings.
( 2 ) In addition to paragraph (b)(1) of this section, issuance of a notice of proposed debarment under § 223.137(g) shall preclude such person from entering into any contract to purchase unprocessed timber originating from Federal lands, and from taking delivery of unprocessed Federal timber from any other party who purchased such timber.
[52 FR 43329, Nov. 12, 1987, as amended at 60 FR 46921, Sept. 8, 1995]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 208 (Friday, October 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 63000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8907]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that a 
meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing 
is scheduled to be held. The purpose of the meeting is to review 
planned changes and progress in developing computerized and paper-and-
pencil enlistment tests.

DATES: November 16, 2006, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., and November 17, 2006, 
from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hotel Providence, 311 
Westminster Street, Providence, RI 02903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant 
Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness), Room 2B271, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 
20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Persons desiring to make oral presentations 
or submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting 
must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number 
above no later than November 6, 2006.

    Dated: October 23, 2006.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06-8907 Filed 10-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
§ 1256.52 Trade secrets and commercial or financial information. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), NARA may withhold records that contain trade secrets and commercial or financial information, obtained from a person, that is privileged or confidential. Such records may be disclosed only if: ( a ) The person who provided the information agrees to its release; or
( b ) In the judgment of the Archivist of the United States, enough time has passed that release of the information would not result in substantial competitive harm to the submitter of the information. See 36 CFR 1250.82 for additional regulatory guidance.
**Exhibit 13(a)**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned officer of Amcor Limited (the “Company”),hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the Company’s AnnualReport on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006**(the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|  Dated: January 15, 2007 | /s/ Ken MacKenzie              |   |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                          | Name: Ken MacKenzie            |
|                          | Title: Chief Executive Officer |
|                          | Managing Director              |

 

----
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5559 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955 (commonly known as the ‘‘LongTerm Leasing Act’’), to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land 

in the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation and land held in trust 

for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 17 (legislative day, DECEMBER 16), 2024 

Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955 (commonly known 

as the ‘‘Long-Term Leasing Act’’), to authorize leases 

of up to 99 years for land in the Mashpee Wampanoag 

Tribe Reservation and land held in trust for the 

Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5559 IS

1 SECTION 1. MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBE AND 

2 WAMPANOAG TRIBE OF GAY HEAD 

3 (AQUINNAH) LEASING AUTHORITY. 

4 Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of Au5 gust 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 539, chapter 615; 25 U.S.C. 

6 415(a)) (commonly known as the ‘‘Long-Term Leasing 

7 Act’’), is amended, in the second sentence, by inserting 

8 ‘‘, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation, land held 

9 in trust for the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head 

10 (Aquinnah)’’ after ‘‘Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis 

11 Reservation’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
§ 230.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) ( 1 ) The regulations of this subpart govern the rules and procedures for the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program (Community Forest Program), established under Section 7A of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103d). Under the Community Forest Program, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, awards grants to local governments, Indian Tribes, and qualified nonprofit organizations to establish community forests for community benefits by acquiring and protecting private forestlands. This subpart is designed to allow Community Forest and Open Space Program (Community Forest Program) grant recipients to grant conservation easements to funding entities, and, in some circumstances, to convey land to another eligible entity when consistent with the program's purposes.
( 2 ) This subpart applies to grants awarded prior to and after May 3, 2021.
( b ) The Community Forest Program applies to eligible entities within any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the territories and possessions of the United States.
* Judge Russell did not participate in consideration of this

case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1177

HOMER W. WALKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NATIONSBANK; JOE TEMPLE; C. KIM NAZARCHYK;

FAYE MCDANIEL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-96-1034-5-BR)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL,* LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Homer W. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Franklin Davis, Jr.,

SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for recusal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337

U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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