alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7615
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES JEROME SIMPKINS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-87-502- MJG, CA-96-814-MJG) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 29, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Jerome Simpkins, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Perovich Gesner, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) and his motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Simpkins , Nos. CR-87-502-MJG; CA-96-814-MJG (D. Md. Aug. 9 and Oct. 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 168 (Thursday, August 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60183-60184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18857]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD294]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish 
Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for agenda details.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 20, 2023, from 
5 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information 
will be posted to the MAFMC's website calendar prior to the meeting at 
www.mafmc.org.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; 
www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

[[Page 60184]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is for the 
Advisory Panel to create a Fishery Performance Report that includes 
advisor input on recent spiny dogfish catch, specifications, and 
related management measures.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should 
be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior 
to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 28, 2023.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-18857 Filed 8-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[No. 2466.]

#### Auckland v. Lawrence.

1. Appellate Practice — Exceptions—Instructions.

Alleged error in giving or refusing to give instructions will not be considered oh appeal where no exception was taken to the giving or refusal to give such instructions.

2. Damages — Evidence.

In an action for damage to plaintiff’s corn, which was about mature, by defendant’s hogs, an estimate of the amount and value of the corn destroyed, made by plaintiff, a farmer, who went over the field after the trespass and examined it as to the injury done, was competent evidence to show the damage done, and was sufficient to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.

*Appeal from the County Court of Otero County.*

Mr. Fred A. Sabin and Mr. 1L S. Beall, for appellant.

Mr. O. G. Hess, for appellee.

Gunter, J.

This action was to recover for alleged trespasses by the hogs of appellant upon the cornfield of appellee. A trial before the justice resulted in a judgment for appellee in the sum of $10.00, and on appeal to the county court in a judgment for $12.00. To review the latter judgment the case is here.

It is said the court'erred in giving instruction No. 2, and in denying refused instruction No. 1.

A sufficient reason for declining to sustain this contention is that no exception was taken to the giving of instruction No. 2, or to the refusal to give instruction No. *1.*— Packer *v. The People,*26 Colo. 310; *French v. Guyot,*30 Colo. 224, 228.

"We have, however, examined both instructions. No prejudicial error was committed in giving the one, or in refusing the other.

It is further said there was no sufficient evidence of the damage done for the question to go to the jury.

*365The damage done was to the corn of appellee, which was about matured. Appellee, a farmer, went over the field after the trespass and examined it as to the injury done. The extent of the injury he determined by estimating the value of the corn destroyed by appellant’s hogs. He gave this estimate to the jury as the amount of his damages. This testimony was competent and sufficient in itself to sustain the verdict.

The judgment should be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
From: roselle luciano

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:56:34 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

roselle luciano

14 prospect ave

sea cliff, ny 11579
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Child HealthChildrenCompetenceElementary Secondary EducationHealth PromotionParent InfluencePeer InfluencePhysical ActivitiesPhysical Activity LevelPhysical EducationSelf EsteemStudent AttitudesStudent MotivationTeacher Influence

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

**Note:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.28 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### Buckley, Woodhull & Burns, Incorporated, Respondent, *v.*James J. Frawley, Appellant.

*Buckley, Woodhull & Burns*v. *Frawley,*138 App. Div. 895, affirmed.

(Argued April 12, 1912;

decided May 7, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 5, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for goods alleged to have been sold and delivered.

*Edward Weiss*and *Nathan Burhan*for appellant.

*James A. C. Johnson*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., G-ray, Werner, Hisoock, Chase and Collin, JJ. Absent: Willard Bartlett, J.
From: Vicky Wu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:06:23 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Vicky Wu

7818 Kingsbury Way

San Antonio, TX 78240
#### BEN RAUSCHBACH, PLAINTIFF, v. DUVAL FOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, AND EMMA FRITSCH, DEFENDANTS.

Decided October 3, 1933.

Argued before Justice Parker, at chambers.

Por the plaintiff, *Maurice Jordan Price.*

Por the defendants, *Chandless, Weller <& Selser.*

Parker, J.

I conclude that the writ of attachment must be quashed. The principal argument for the defendants rested on the general proposition that the language of the affidavit was insufficient to prove a *prima facie*case of attempt to remove property out of the jurisdiction for the purpose of *901defrauding creditors. This is undoubtedly the gravamen of the affidavit and I take it that the attempt of the plaintiff was to bring the case within clause three of the first section of the Attachment act of 1901, the language of which is “(3) where the court or a judge thereof, or a Supreme Court commissioner shall make an order for the issue of an attachment upon proof, by affidavit of fraud which would warrant an order for a *capias ad respondendum.”*This clause was not in the former Attachment act and was doubtless introduced for the purpose of bringing within its purview the class of eases covered by chapter 43 of the laws of 1895. *Pamph. L., p.*103, 104. In order to obtain an attachment under that act or under the third clause above referred to, the affidavit must be such as would be sufficient to justify an order for bail. I have grave doubt whether the plaintiff has made out a case but it seems unnecessary to go further on that point because of a defect in the affidavit which, to my mind, is controlling.

In *Potter*v. *Cook,*a decision by me as Circuit Court judge in 1907, reported in 30 *N. J. L. J.*206, definitely held that an affidavit for bail was insufficient if entitled in a cause, the theory being that no cause is pending when the affidavit is made, and for that reason perjury cannot be assigned thereon. This ease has been several times referred to in decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Errors and Appeals and has never been overruled; and in the recent cases of *Vitalano*v. *Roffo,*3 *N. J. Mis. R.*1130; 130 *Atl. Rep.*815, and *Stuewald*v. *Furman,*4 *N. J. Mis. R.*470; 133 *Atl. Rep.*187, I definitely held there can be no distinction in this regard between an affidavit made for the purpose of obtaining an order for bail and an affidavit made for the purpose of obtaining an order for attachment, because the Attachment act specifically requires the same kind of an affidavit. The whole action is founded on it in either case.

Now the affidavit before me is entitled in the cause naming certain parties as defendants, and several times in the course of the affidavit it mentions the “defendants” and also the “plaintiff,” so that as in the case of *Potter*v. *Cook, supra,*it *902is impossible to separate the heading of the affidavit from the body of it.

This reasoning, of course, may seem technical but, as noted in the two cases cited, it is founded upon sound and substantial consideration.

Counsel may present a rule quashing the attachment.
PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	$40,000	April
    19, 2016   


 


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, PCS EDVENTURES!.COM, INC., an Idaho corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Borrower”),
hereby promises to pay to the order of TODD R. HACKETT, or (his/her/its) successors and assigns, if any (hereinafter referred
to as “Lender”), the principal sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000), together with interest on the unpaid principal
amount of this Promissory Note (“Note”) at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum in the manner and upon the
terms and conditions set forth below.


 


The
principal and interest on the unpaid principal amount of this Note, or any portion thereof, shall be paid in full in cash on or
before April 30, 2016. All cash payments on this Note shall be made in lawful currency of the United States at the address of
the Lender, or at such other place as the holder of this Note may designate in writing.


 


	 	a.	A
    security interest in all unencumbered Accounts Receivable. A/R shall not be factored or pledged without the written consent
    of Lender.


 


	 	b.	A
    security interest in the PCSV public entity including net loss carry forward and any other value the entity may have.


 


Upon
default in the payment of any amount due pursuant to this Note for more than thirty (30) days after the due date, the Lender may,
without notice, declare the entire debt and principal amount then remaining unpaid under this Note immediately due and payable
and may, without notice, in addition to any other remedies, proceed against the Borrower to collect the unpaid principal and any
interest due. Presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest are waived by the Borrower and any and
all others who may at any time become liable or obligated for the payment of all or any part of this Note, the principal or interest
due.


 


This
Note may be amended only by a written instrument executed by Lender and Borrower.


 


This
Note shall be governed by, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Idaho. Any legal action
to enforce any obligation of the parties to this Note shall be brought only in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District
of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Ada.


 




    	 	 	 



    	 	 	 



    

 


In
the event of any civil action filed or initiated between the parties to this Note or any other documents accompanying this Note,
or arising from the breach or any provision hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to seek from the other party all costs,
damages and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s and paralegal’s fees, incurred by the prevailing party.


 


Dated
the day and year first above written.


 


	PCS
    EDVENTURES!.COM, INC.	 
	 	 
		 
	Robert
    O. Grover, 	 
	Executive
    Vice President	 
	PCS
    Edventures!com, Inc.	 
	345
    Bobwhite Ct. Ste. 200	 
	Boise,
    ID 83706	 
	(Borrower)	 
	 	 
		 
	Todd
    Hackett	 
	CEO	 
	PCS
    Edventures!.com, Inc.	 
	1923
    Wildwood Lane	 
	Muscatine,
    Iowa, 52761	 
	(Lender)
From: Sharon Dudash

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:11:21 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Sharon Dudash

438 Prospect Ave. North

Kent, WA 98030
#### The Mayor, etc., of the City of New York, v. Nathaniel Sands.

Order affirmed, without costs.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 21-0985V 

UNPUBLISHED 

PAMELA CLEMENTE, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: December 17, 2021 

Voluntary dismissal; Order 

concluding proceedings. 

 

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

 On February 23, 2021, Pamela Clemente filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 

34.

2 Petitioner alleged that she developed injuries, including Sweet’s disease (primary 

neurtrophilic dermatosis) and Pustular rash, from a Shingrix3 vaccine she receive don 

April 23, 2019. Petition at 1. On November 22, 2021, Petitioner submitted a notice of 

voluntary dismissal. 

In light of Petitioner’s “notice of dismissal at any time before service of 

respondent’s report” pursuant to Vaccine Rule 21(a), this case is dismissed without 

prejudice. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that 

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment 

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 s/Brian H. Corcoran 

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Chief Special Master 

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. 

3 The Shingrix (shingles) vaccine is not a covered vaccine under the National Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          42,588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,920
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     18,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,135
<PP&E>                                       1,725,238
<DEPRECIATION>                               (542,877)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,143,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,087,041
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,328
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,882,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,143,369
<SALES>                                      1,222,713
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,223,266
<CGS>                                        (669,300)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (7,192,219)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (21,432)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,659,685)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (953,192)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,706,493)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,706,493)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)


</TABLE>