alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 19, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-11233 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NIAZI MAHMOUD MOHAMED SADDIG, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-153-1-A

-------------------- Before DAVIS, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to repre s ent Niazi
Mahmoud Mohamed Saddig has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. Ca lifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Saddig has not responded to the motion. Our independent
review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous
issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw isNo. 02-11233 -2- GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03- 08 -00 642 -CR Na quan T yr e e k Boy d , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 6207 1 , HO NORAB LE JO E CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellant see ks to appea l from the trial c ourt’s judg ment convictinghim of deadly conduct. Ap p el l an t was cha rg ed with ag g ravated assault with a de adly wea pon and, acc ordingto the trial court’ s judgme nt, ag ree d to the terms of a plea barg ain and pled guilty to the lesser- included cha

rg e of de adly

conduct. Appe llant filed his notice of a ppeal in the trial court on about September

26, 2008. The trial c ourt has ce rtified that the cause wa s a plea -bar g ain ca se and that appellant ha s no rig ht of appe al. Thus, the appe al is dismis sed. See Tex. R. App. P . 25.2(d).

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 19, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HORIZON MEDICAL PRODUCTS FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         787,336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,917,622
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 10,886,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,504,408
<PP&E>                                       4,629,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                 700,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              65,967,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,522,059
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,366
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,214,733
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,228,099
<SALES>                                     21,631,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,631,333
<CGS>                                        8,518,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,518,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,645,532
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,270,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,229,764
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,466,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            763,090
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,016,586
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,779,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration

June 5, 2013 Charles A. Barth, Director Engine and Propeller Directorate

Office ofthe Federal Register (NF) National Archives and Records Administration 700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, D.C . 20408-0001 Dear Mr. Barth : 12 New England Executive Park Burlington , MA 01803 (781) 238-7110 , Fax : (781) 238-7199

Under 1 CFR part 51 , we request that you approve the incorporation by reference ofthe material listed below into the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR). An original copy ofthe material is enclosed. We will reference the following material in 14 CFR 39 . 13 : Rolls-Royce plc Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-H311 , dated March 8, 2013 and NMSB RB .211-72-G872 , Revision 2, dated March 8, 2013 . We have also included a draft ofthe rule that incorporates the material into the CFR. Please contact me ifyou have any questions .

rian M. Warner Technical Writer-Editor Engine & Propeller Directorate Aircraft Certification Service (781) 238-7169
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3543]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Federal Open Market Committee; Domestic Policy Directive of 
January 30-31, 2006

    In accordance with Sec.  271.25 of its rules regarding availability 
of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic 
policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its 
meeting held on January 30-31, 2007.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 
meeting on January 30-31, 2007, which includes the domestic policy 
directive issued at the meeting, are available upon request to the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 
20551. The minutes are published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin and 
in the Board's annual report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial 
conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable 
growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in 
the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent 
with maintaining the federal funds rate at an average of around 5\1/4\ 
percent.
    By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, February 22, 2007.

Vincent R. Reinhart,
Secretary, Federal Open Market Committee.
[FR Doc. E7-3543 Field 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD LEE IVANS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0013 MCE DAD P

vs.

GLENN TOPPENBERG, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 26, 2004, the court determined that service was

appropriate for defendants Neal and Croll, and ordered plaintiff to submit specified documents

for service on the defendants by the U.S. Marshal. Service on defendant Neal was returned

unexecuted on March 4, 2005. Subsequently on March 17, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to

provide additional information using discovery or other means available to plaintiff in order to

enable service on defendant Neal. On May 16, 2005, the court granted plaintiff an extension of

time until July 13, 2005 for this purpose. Plaintiff was also cautioned that pursuant to Rule 4(m)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court would dismiss an unserved defendant unless

plaintiff could show good cause for failing to effect service. On July 14, 2005, plaintiff filed a

letter indicating that he has been unable to obtain further information to facilitate service on

Case 2:04-cv-00013-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 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

2

defendant Neal and requesting that he now wished to have his case go forward with respect to

defendant Croll.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against

defendant Neal be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: August 3, 2005.

DAD:4

ivan0013.4m

Case 2:04-cv-00013-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2
Analytics

FLETC All Website Data

All Web Site Data

Go to report 

FLETC.gov Web Performance Metrics Sep 24, 2021 - Sep 30, 2021

Total Visits

20,169

%ofTotal: 100.00% (20,169)

Avg. Visit Duration

00:02:04

Avg forView: 00:02:04 (0.00%)

Pageviews

50,940

%ofTotal: 100.00% (50,940)

Unique Visitors

16,403

%ofTotal: 100.00% (16,403)

Avg. Pages / Visit

2.53

Avg forView: 2.53 (0.00%)

Avg. Time on Page

00:01:21

Avg forView: 00:01:21 (0.00%)

Bounce Rate

56.36%

Avg forView: 56.36% (0.00%)

Top Pages

Page Title Pageviews

Bounce

Rate

Frontpage | Federal Law Enforcement Training Cente

rs

6,561 39.39%

Search the Training Catalog | Federal Law Enforcem

ent Training Centers

5,612 33.68%

Glynco, Georgia | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

2,427 45.63%

Execution of a Search Warrant (I) (MP3) | Federal La

w Enforcement Training Centers

1,882 87.54%

Search | Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers 1,402 61.54%

PEB Scores for Age and Gender | Federal Law Enforc

ement Training Centers

1,134 13.48%

Basic Programs | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

915 31.25%

Artesia, New Mexico | Federal Law Enforcement Trai

ning Centers

765 39.74%

State, Local & Tribal Law Enforcement Training | Fed

eral Law Enforcement Training Centers

724 30.46%

Glynco Campus Life | Federal Law Enforcement Trai

ning Centers

710 34.42%

Visits by Social Network

Social Network Sessions

Facebook 115

LinkedIn 8

Instagram 7

reddit 6

Twitter 4

YouTube 2

Quora 1

Visits by Source

New vs. Returned Visitors

google (direct) bing dhs.gov

yahoo Other

7.7%

21.4%

62.9%

New Visitor Returning Visitor

20%

80%

© 2021 Google

All Users

100.00% Sessions

Analytics

FLETC All Website Data

All Web Site Data

Go to report 

FLETC.gov Search Performance Metrics Sep 1, 2021 - Sep 30, 2021

Visits to FLETC.gov

84,339

%ofTotal: 100.00% (84,339)

Total Internal Searches

1

%ofTotal: 100.00% (1)

Total External Searches (Google)

57,993

%ofTotal: 68.76% (84,339)

Top Internal Searches by Search Term

Search Term

Total Unique

Searches

Organic

Searches

https://www.fletc.gov/artesia-stu

nt-info

1 1

Top External Searches (Google - as reported)

Page Title Sessions

Frontpage | Federal Law Enforcement Training Cent

ers

8,613

Execution of a Search Warrant (I) (MP3) | Federal La

w Enforcement Training Centers

6,709

Glynco, Georgia | Federal Law Enforcement Training

Centers

2,412

Search the Training Catalog | Federal Law Enforcem

ent Training Centers

1,710

FedBizOpps | Federal Law Enforcement Training Ce

nters

1,225

National Terrorism Advisory System | Federal Law E

nforcement Training Centers

1,073

PEB Scores for Age and Gender | Federal Law Enfor

cement Training Centers

1,071

Physical Efficiency Battery (PEB) | Federal Law E

rcement Training Centers

961

Criminal Investigator Training Program | Federal La

w Enforcement Training Centers

929

Artesia, New Mexico | Federal Law Enforcement Tra

ining Centers

847

New vs. Returned Visitors

Avg. Visits per Visitor

New Visitor Returning Visitor

16.5%

83.5%

1 2 Other

14.7%

11.6%

73.8%

© 2021 Google

All Users

100.00% Sessions
About this capture
Alexa Crawls
Alexa Internet
Wayback Machine
Alexa Crawls DF
#### ST&T INC., d/b/a Food Bargain Market, Plaintiff, and Solomon Tekle, Lily Tekle, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 00-55772.

D.C. No. CV-99-05962-RSWL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

*584Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Solomon and Lily Tekle, husband and wife, appeal pro se orders of the district court dismissing their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying reconsideration.1 Because the district court intended that its orders dismiss the action, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, *see Nevada v. Burford,*918 F.2d 854, 855 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

Whether the government has waived sovereign immunity is a question of law reviewed de novo. *Arford v. United States,*934 F.2d 229, 231 (9th Cir.1991). We review the denial of reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. *School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). The district court properly considered only the original complaint because the Tekles did not obtain leave of court before attempting to amend their complaint by filing the document captioned as both a “Supplemental Complaint” and opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a). Because the original complaint did not set forth any statutory basis for suit or show that the defendant waived sovereign immunity, the district court properly dismissed the complaint. *See Hutchinson v. United States,*677 F.2d 1322, 1327 (9th Cir.1982).

Because the Tekles did not show clear error or present newly discovered evidence, the district court did not abuse *585its discretion by denying their motion for reconsideration. *See School Dist. No. 1J,*5 F.3d at 1262-63.

We have not considered the arguments or factual allegations of both parties raised for the first time on appeal. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

We reject the TeMes’ remaining contentions for lack of merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Because the Tekles are proceeding pro se, they may not prosecute this action on behalf of their business, ST & T Inc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(2).
No. 59532.

protest 218398-K (New York).

#### K. Stekr Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers in this case not disclosing anything which would tend in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector, the protest was overruled.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER PATRICK MCGOWAN,

Petitioner

v.

WARDEN KEVIN KAUFFMAN,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 64 MM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2019, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2249

___________________________

David Librace

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: January 16, 2018

Filed: January 24, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
David Librace appeals fromthe order ofthe DistrictCourt affirming the denial 1

of disability insurance benefits. The only orders properly before this Court on appeal

are the orders granting the Commissioner’s motion for relief filed under Rule 60(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denying Librace’s motion to alter or

amend filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We conclude

that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in making those rulings. See Keller

v. City of Fremont, 719 F.3d 932, 946 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing the district court’s

ruling on a Rule 60(a) motion for an abuse of discretion); Sipp v. Astrue, 641 F.3d

975, 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing the district court’s ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion

for an abuse of discretion). We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B. 

______________________________

The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable

Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-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

GREGORY DAVENPORT

Attorney at Law

3031 W. March Lane, Suite 334 East

Stockton, CA 95219

(209) 937-8333

MARK A. THIEL, SBN 182045

LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. THIEL

1743 GRAND CANAL BLVD., SUITE 10

STOCKTON, CA 95207

(209) 951-9600

(209) 951-0863

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

JEFFREY THORNHILL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY THORNHILL, 2:04-cv-0947-MCE-GGH

vs.

ORDER

CITY OF STOCKTON,

et al.

Defendants.

___________________________/

TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEY OF RECORD:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Notice of Substitution filed in this matter is 

hereby granted and approved;

DATED: March 27, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00947-MCE -GGH Document 19 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 50957.

#### Protests 115830-K/248, etc., of American Express Co. et al. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Followingthe authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
powers, marilyn 

From: Fernandez, Cristina 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:41 PM 

Mastro, Donna; powers, marilyn 

FW: EPA-R03-0AR-2014-0281 

Categories: Purple Category 

FYI 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director 

Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30) 

Air Protection Division 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2023 

Work: (215) 814-2178 

Cell: (215) 375-0847 

From: Robert Ukeiley [mailto:rukeiley@igc.org] 

Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:07 PM 

To: Fernandez, Cristina 

Cc: Hogan, Stephanie 

Subject: EPA-R03-0AR-2014-0281 

Dear Ms. Fernandez: 

With regard to the above referenced proposed rule, EPA cannot approve the redesignation until Maryland has PM2.5 

increments fully approved into Maryland's SIP approved PSD program. Without these increments, the Maryland does 

not have a fully approved relevant SIP and does not have an adequate maintenance plan. 

If you have any further questions about this comment, please do not hesitate to ask. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Ukeiley 

Law Office of Robert Ukeiley 

255 Mountain Meadows Road 

Boulder, CO 80302 

Tel: 303-442-4033 

rukeiley@igc.org 

I check email infrequently. If this is urgent, feel free to call. 

1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

July 21, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA)

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 8, 2011 between EMA, DOT, and EPA 

and included the following individuals:

EMA: Tim Blubaugh

DOT: Coralie Cooper, Maurice Hicks

EPA: Byron Bunker, Houshun Zhang, Cle Jackson and Angela Cullen

The discussion focused on child ratings and compliance margins for engine testing of CO2

emissions and fuel consumption.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN CARROLL HOLSOME,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVE RUNNELS, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S-04-0924 LKK GGH P

ORDER

Good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that Respondent’s response to Petitioner’s

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be filed on or before September 8, 2005.

Dated: 8/16/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

hols0924.po

Case 2:04-cv-00924-LKK-CHS Document 21 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 1