alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1735

CASSANDRA HARLEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SUBURBAN HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA03-1694-JFM)

Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederic M. Brandes, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellant. Teresa

Burke Wright, JACKSON LEWIS, L.L.P., Vienna, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*The district court noted that Harley referred to Title VII in

her complaint, but did not allege a claim thereunder.

Nevertheless, the elements required to establish a prima facie case

of employment discrimination are the same under Title VII and

§ 1981. See Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645, 649

n.1 (4th Cir. 2002); Hawkins v. Pepsico, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 278

(4th Cir. 2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Cassandra Harley (“Harley”) appeals the order of the

district court granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

dismissing her claim of employment discrimination filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000).* We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Harley v. Suburban Hosp. Inc., No. CA-03-1694-

JFM (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                       518
<INVENTORY>                                      1,506
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,714
<PP&E>                                          18,150
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,812
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,030
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,944
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,528
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    33
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  99
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (157)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (192)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
|What's New ·

What's Next ·

Site Map ·
A-Z Index ·
Careers ·

RSS ·
All Videos ·

Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 Current Release
Release Dates
Enhanced Financial Accounts
Financial Accounts Guide
Technical Q&As
Announcements
  F.226 Life Insurance Reserves  
 Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted annual rates Description
Series code
2014
2015
2016
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
2016   Q3
2016   Q4
LineAll domestic sectors; life insurance reserves; liability
	FA883140005
	46.0
	46.2
	49.3
	58.6
	31.4
	22.7
	83.8
	38.8
	52.0
	1Federal government; life insurance reserves; liability
	FA313140003
	0.8
	-0.1
	0.1
	-0.6
	1.3
	-0.4
	0.8
	0.1
	0.0
	2Life insurance companies; life insurance reserves; liability
	FA543140005
	45.3
	46.3
	49.2
	59.2
	30.1
	23.1
	83.0
	38.7
	52.0
	3All domestic sectors; life insurance reserves; liability
	FA883140005
	46.0
	46.2
	49.3
	58.6
	31.4
	22.7
	83.8
	38.8
	52.0
	4Households and nonprofit organizations; life insurance reserves; asset
	FA153040005
	35.1
	35.6
	39.7
	49.0
	20.7
	13.2
	74.1
	28.8
	42.7
	5U.S.-chartered depository institutions; life insurance reserves; asset
	FA763040005
	5.9
	6.5
	5.6
	5.6
	6.6
	5.5
	5.7
	6.0
	5.3
	6Holding companies; life insurance reserves; asset
	FA733040005
	5.0
	4.1
	4.0
	4.0
	4.0
	4.0
	4.0
	4.0
	4.0
	7 Back to top
   Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
# Official Journal C 270I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 270I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6317 August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 270I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6317 August 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 270 I/01 | Commission statement regarding Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 270 I/01

Commission statement regarding Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CI 270/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CI 270/1

---

Commission statement regarding Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law

(2020/C 270 I/01)

At the time of the review to be conducted in accordance with Article 27 of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and the of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (1), the Commission will consider the possibility of proposing to extend its scope of application to certain acts based on Articles 153 TFEU and 157 TFEU, after consulting the social partners, where appropriate, in accordance with Article 154 TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17.

---
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case r

United States District Court

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

RICHARD SHATLEY,

v.

CASE NUMBER: C06-5213RJB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

 X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or

heard and a decision has been rendered.

BASED ON ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IT IS ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED

Court finds for Defendant and orders judgment entered against Plaintiff for costs. This case is DISMISSED.

 May 18, 2007 BRUCE RIFKIN 

Clerk

s/Dara L. Kaleel 

 By Dara L. Kaleel, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:06-cv-05213-RJB Document 29 Filed 05/18/07 Page 1 of 1
No. P68/37.

protest 64/503 (New York).

#### Zecron International, Inc. *v.*United States,

Beckworth, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of rainwear similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear*Co., *Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

June 25, 1947

No. 51802.

#### Coro, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 130642-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of alabaster beads the same as those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was therefore sustained.
No. 51812.

#### Bacmo Postman Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 874584-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 22-20285

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus

Toni Gale Engeling,

Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-129-2

Before Jolly, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges , Per Curiam: *
The Federal Public Defender appoin ted to represent Toni Gale Engeling has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Engeling has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 22, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-20285 Document: 00516652362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2023No. 22-20285

2issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 22-20285 Document: 00516652362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2023
No. 69353.

#### China Art Goods Co. and Perryman, Mojonier Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/16435 (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “D” consist of trays, serving trays, snack trays, display trees, etc., not in part of rattan, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66729, the claim at 16% percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by the Annecy Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T.D. 52373), supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T.D. 52476), for manufactures of wood was sustained. The items marked “E,” stipulated to consist of items of furniture other than chairs, in chief value of wood, were held dutiable at 10% percent under the provision in said paragraph 412, as modified by T.D. 54108, for furniture other than chairs, in chief value of wood, as claimed.
# Official Journal C 104A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.104.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 104A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5610 April 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.104.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 104A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5610 April 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Medicines Agency |
| 2013/C 104A/01 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 1 |
| 2013/C 104A/02 | Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Medicines Agency

2013/C 104A/01

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

1

2013/C 104A/02

Recruitment for the European Medicines Agency (London)

2

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
|What's New ·

What's Next ·

Site Map ·
A-Z Index ·
Careers ·

RSS ·
All Videos ·

Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 Current Release
Release Dates
Enhanced Financial Accounts
Financial Accounts Guide
Technical Q&As
Announcements
  L.221 Farm Mortgages (1)  
 Billions of dollars; amounts outstanding end of period, not seasonally adjusted Description
Series code
2014
2015
2016
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
2016   Q3
2016   Q4
LineAll sectors; farm mortgages; asset
	FL893065603
	196.8
	208.8
	224.4
	205.8
	208.8
	212.7
	216.6
	220.5
	224.4
	1Corporate farm business; farm mortgages; liability
	FL183165605
	51.6
	55.8
	59.7
	55.2
	55.8
	56.9
	57.8
	58.8
	59.7
	2Noncorporate farm business; farm mortgages; liability
	FL233165605
	145.2
	153.0
	164.7
	150.6
	153.0
	155.8
	158.8
	161.7
	164.7
	3All sectors; farm mortgages; asset
	FL893065603
	196.8
	208.8
	224.4
	205.8
	208.8
	212.7
	216.6
	220.5
	224.4
	4Households and nonprofit organizations; farm mortgages; asset
	FL153065605
	10.0
	5.8
	8.3
	8.9
	5.8
	7.1
	7.2
	7.3
	8.3
	5Nonfinancial noncorporate business; farm mortgages; asset
	FL113065603
	0.7
	0.7
	0.8
	0.7
	0.7
	0.8
	0.8
	0.8
	0.8
	6Federal government; farm mortgages; asset
	FL313065605
	5.2
	5.9
	6.5
	5.7
	5.9
	6.0
	5.7
	6.3
	6.5
	7State and local governments, excluding employee retirement funds; farm mortgages; asset
	FL213065603
	1.0
	1.1
	1.1
	1.1
	1.1
	1.1
	1.1
	1.1
	1.1
	8U.S.-chartered depository institutions; farm mortgages; asset (USDA)
	FL763065633
	73.5
	79.4
	84.2
	77.7
	79.4
	80.4
	82.1
	83.3
	84.2
	9Foreign banking offices in the U.S.; farm mortgages; asset
	FL753065603
	0.2
	0.2
	0.2
	0.2
	0.2
	0.2
	0.2
	0.2
	0.2
	10Life insurance companies; farm mortgages on farm land; asset
	FL543065633
	12.0
	12.0
	12.9
	11.8
	12.0
	12.2
	12.4
	12.7
	12.9
	11State and local government employee defined benefit retirement funds; farm mortgages; asset
	FL223065643
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	0.0
	12Government-sponsored enterprises; farm mortgages; asset
	FL403065605
	92.6
	101.4
	107.9
	97.4
	101.4
	102.3
	104.4
	106.2
	107.9
	13Agency-and GSE-backed mortgage pools; farm mortgages; asset
	FL413065605
	1.6
	2.3
	2.5
	2.4
	2.3
	2.7
	2.7
	2.7
	2.5
	14 Back to top
  **NOTES** Excludes mortgages on farm houses.
  Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

PATRICIA BELL WATKINS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Respondent.

Case No. C06-5141FDB

ORDER TO AMEND

THE PETITION

This habeas corpus petition has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant

to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR

4. Petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. # 1 and 2). 

Petitioner names only the State of Washington as a Respondent. 28 U.S.C. § 2243 indicates that

writs are to be directed “to the person having custody of the person detained”. This person typically

is the superintendent of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated. Failure to name the

petitioner's custodian deprives federal courts of personal jurisdiction. Stanley v. California Supreme

Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Petitioner has listed a P.O. Box as a return address. (Docket sheet). It is possible petitioner

Case 3:06-cv-05141-FDB Document 4 Filed 04/21/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER

is not in custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district court may entertain an application for a writ

of habeas corpus only from a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. The

custody requirement of the habeas corpus statute is designed to preserve the writ as a remedy for

severe restraints on individual liberty. Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose Milpitas Judicial

District, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973). The person must be in custody pursuant to the conviction or

sentence under attack at the time the petition is filed. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91

(1989); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). 

Finally, petitioner has not provided service copies of the petition. The court needs two

copies of the petition for service. Petitioner is ordered to file an amended petition or a motion to

change the case caption and petitioner must name the superintendent of the facility where she is

incarcerated. The new petition or motion must be filed on of before May 19th, 2006 or the court will

recommend dismissal of this petition on jurisdictional grounds.

The clerk is ordered to send copies of this order to the petitioner and to note this matter for

the courts May 19th, 2006 calendar.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2006. 

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05141-FDB Document 4 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 64645.

#### Verona Dyestuffs *v.*United States,

protest 59/26459 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is a product chiefly used as an assistant in preparing or finishing textiles, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MICHAEL A. BURNHART,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMANDER REED HOLTGEERTS,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-0816-RSL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff is a Washington prisoner who is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. On November 22, 2006, the Court directed the Clerk to serve

defendants with a copy of the complaint. (Dkt. #28). Defendants have not yet filed an answer.

On December 18, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendants to answer interrogatories.

(Dkt. #32). On December 29, 2006, defendants filed a response to the motion to compel. (Dkt.

#34). Having reviewed the motion, response, and the balance of the record, the Court does hereby

find and ORDER as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel is premature for several reasons: First, it appears that

plaintiff filed the motion before he attempted to resolve the dispute with defendants, as required

by the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Local Rule CR 37(a)(2)(A);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A). Second, plaintiff filed the motion to compel before the 30-day limit

to respond to the interrogatories had elapsed. Finally, defendants assert that they have not been

Case 2:06-cv-00816-RSL Document 35 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PAGE -2

served with a copy of the disputed interrogatories. (Dkt. #34 at 2). For these reasons, plaintiff’s

motion to compel (Dkt. #32) is DENIED.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for

defendants, and to Chief United States District Judge Robert S. Lasnik.

DATED this 8th day of January, 2007.

A

Mary Alice Theiler

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00816-RSL Document 35 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10001 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHNNY LEE DAWSON, also known as Johnnie Lee Dawson, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-25-11-Y

- - - - - - - - - - August 19, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johnnie Lee Dawson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a downward departure upon his resentencing on drug charges. He argues that his sentence was unfair and that this court should remedy this unfairness by setting forth additional factors, not “heretofore” defined, that sentencing courts must consider in determining whether to grant a downward departure.No. 98-10001 -2- Dawson has not shown that the district court mistakenly believed that it could not depart or that the court’s refusal to depart was in violation of the law. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 478 (5th Cir. 1995).
APPEAL DISMISSED.