alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6640]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 9, 2007. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: SBIC Management Assessment Questionnaire & License 
Application Exhibits to SBIC License Application Management Assessment.
    No's: 2181, 2182, 2183.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Small Business Investment Companies.
    Responses: 150.
    Annual Burden: 4,300.
    Title: Microloan Program Electronic Reporting System (MPERS).
    No: N/A.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Microloan Program Intermediary Lenders.
    Responses: 2,500.
    Annual Burden: 625.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
 [FR Doc. E7-6640 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
A90A0219.

#### SHRADER v. HOPKINS et al. SHRADER v. EVANS et al.

A90A0220.

(394 SE2d 538)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

On November 16, 1988, plaintiff, an inmate at Metro Correctional Institute (“Metro”), brought this action pro se against David C. Evans, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, Mary Esposito, Metro’s warden, Grady Lewis, Metro’s former warden, Hugh Brown, Metro’s deputy warden, William Hopkins, M.D., medical director of the Department of Corrections, Nathaniel A. Lopey, M.D., a physician, and France Grace Ward, a nurse. In his complaint, plaintiff sought damages for alleged medical malpractice and, pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, for alleged civil rights violations resulting from constitutionally improper medical care. In particular, plaintiff alleged that, on November 3, 1986, he fell and broke his ankle at Metro and that, thereafter, he received improper treatment at the hands of defendants. Defendants answered the complaint and denied liability.

*640Decided April 9, 1990

Rehearings denied April 25, 1990 and May 15, 1990

Terry Shrader, *pro se.*

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, H. Perry Michael, Executive Assistant Attorney General, William B. Hill, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Daryl A. Robinson, Michael E. Hobbs, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, Sullivan, Hall, Booth & Smith, Terrance Sullivan, Michael A. Pannier,*for appellees.

Defendants Hopkins and Lopey separately moved for summary judgment; defendants Evans, Esposito, Lewis and Brown jointly moved to dismiss the complaint on statute of limitation grounds. In support of their summary judgment motion, defendants Hopkins and Lopey submitted affidavits wherein they deposed that, in treating plaintiff, the physicians and health care providers exercised the degree of care and skill exercised by the medical profession in general under similar circumstances; that no act or omission on the part of any physician or health care provider caused or contributed to plaintiff’s alleged injuries; and that no health care provider was deliberately indifferent to any serious medical needs of plaintiff.

The trial court awarded summary judgment to defendants Hopkins and Lopey and it granted the motion to dismiss, in part, ruling that any claims arising prior to November 16, 1986, were time barred. Plaintiff appeals. *Held’.*

1. The trial court properly applied a two-year statute of limitation to the 42 USC § 1983 claim. *Wilson v. Garcia,*471 U. S. 261 (105 SC 1938, 85 LE2d 254). See also *Henson v. American Family Corp.,*171 Ga. App. 724, 731 (8) (321 SE2d 205).

2. The trial court did not err in awarding summary judgment to defendants Hopkins and Lopey on the medical malpractice claim and the 42 USC § 1983 claim. *Johnson v. Jones,*178 Ga. App. 346, 350, 351 (343 SE2d 403). Defendants’ affidavits established that plaintiff’s care and treatment was in accordance with the standard of care exercised by the medical profession and that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Plaintiff presented no expert opinions or facts in rebuttal.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Carley, C. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO TONY LOZANO,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-55330

D.C. No. 5:09-cv-01847-JSLMRW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

J. Spencer Letts, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 17, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Antonio Lozano appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 habeas petition, challenging his California second-degree murder

conviction. Because the state court did not make an unreasonable determination of

FILED

DEC 05 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
the facts nor unreasonably apply clearly established federal law, we affirm. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Petitioner was convicted under a felony murder theory, predicated on his

felony charge for grossly negligent discharge of a firearm that could result in injury

or death under California Penal Code § 246.3. Although the California Supreme

Court’s decision in People v. Chun, 203 P.3d 425, 444 (Cal. 2009), indicates that

negligent discharge of a firearm merges with the killing so a charge under § 246.3

cannot support felony murder, that decision came out after Petitioner’s conviction

was final. Chun changed the law because it overruled the California Supreme

Court’s prior opinions in People v. Robertson, 95 P.3d 872 (Cal. 2004), and People

v. Randle, 111 P.3d 987 (Cal. 2005), which were applicable when Petitioner’s

conviction became final. Subsequent changes in state law cannot be grounds for

federal habeas relief. See, e.g., Kleve v. Hill, 243 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir. 2001).

Recognizing this, Petitioner attempts to argue that the state courts made an

unreasonable determination of the facts by finding he fired the shots with the

collateral purpose of frightening the victims. To warrant relief, the state court’s

factual determinations must be objectively unreasonable, not merely incorrect or

debatable. Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010). Petitioner testified that he

intended to frighten the victims, and under California law at the time of his

2
conviction, this was a sufficient collateral purpose to prevent the shooting from

merging with the killing for felony murder purposes. See Robertson, 95 P.3d at

881. The state court’s determination was not objectively unreasonable. Further,

because this is a question of state law, Petitioner’s contention that the collateral

purpose finding violated federal law is unavailing. See Butler v. Curry, 528 F.3d

624, 642 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We are bound to accept a state court’s interpretation of

state law, except in the highly unusual case in which the interpretation is clearly

untenable . . . .”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We do not reach Petitioner’s uncertified issue. The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

3
No. 56073.

protest 150017-K (Galveston).

#### R. W. Smith A/C Robert H. Ray Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of radar equipment the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *United Geophysical Company*(38 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 451). Upon the agreed statement of facts and following the authority cited, the radar equipment was held dutiable as claimed.
H. R. 8976 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20 West 

White Street in Millstadt, Illinois, as the ‘‘Corporal Matthew A. Wyatt Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CORPORAL MATTHEW A. WYATT POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 20 West White Street in Millstadt, Illinois, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Matthew A. Wyatt 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Corporal Matthew A. Wyatt Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
A90A0556.

#### KIRKSEY v. THE STATE.

(393 SE2d 508)

Banke, Presiding Judge.

Kirksey appeals his convictions of three counts of armed robbery, *380two counts of theft by taking, and three counts of possession of a knife during the commission of a crime. *Held:*

Decided April 16, 1990.

*Floyd H. Farless,*for appellant.

*Stephen F. Lanier, District Attorney, Lisa W. Pettit, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

1. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the state’s use of a peremptory challenge to strike a black juror. The objection was predicated on *Batson v. Kentucky,*476 U. S. 79 (106 SC 1712, 90 LE2d 69) (1986). The transcript reveals that two of the prospective jurors were black, that the state used a peremptory challenge to strike one of them, and that the other was selected to serve on the jury. We do not believe these facts establish a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in the jury selection process. See generally *Williams v. State,*258 Ga. 80 (3) (365 SE2d 408) (1988). Moreover, in response to the appellant’s assertion of discrimination in the jury selection process, the state’s attorney explained that she had stricken the juror at issue based on a concern that the juror might identify with and be sympathetic to the young defendant due to her “youth”; and it was further shown that three white jurors had also been stricken on the basis of youth. Under the circumstances, the trial court clearly was not required to find that the state had exercised its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. Consequently, this enumeration is without merit.

2. The trial court did not err in allowing the appellant’s “mugshot” to be introduced into evidence. “It is well settled that the mere admission into evidence of a ‘ “picture of defendant with an identifying number does not indicate that the defendant was guilty of any previous crime and does not place his character in issue.” (Cits.)’ [Cit.]” *Dorsey v. State,*183 Ga. App. 409 (1) (359 SE2d 195) (1987).

3. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find the appellant guilty of each of the offenses of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. See generally *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Birdsong and Cooper, JJ., concur.*
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# The Cooperative Extension System: an investment in America's future

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  The Cooperative Extension System: an investment in America's future 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension System 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Shipping list no.: 88-41-P. "January 1988." 
                    -           Subjects        
                    -  Farm Credit System (U.S.) 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  144 × 56 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Zeutschel OS 12000 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu. 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R OL L Y S T E VA NE S E NO C H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72242 A ge nc yN o. A 093- 321- 787 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . R ol l y S t evanes E no ch, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd on es i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew o f th e B o ar do f I m m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ o rd eraf firm in g an im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence, Fakhry v . 

# FI LED JU N 04 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 72242 2 Mukasey , 52 4 F . 3d 10 57 , 10 62 (9th C i r. 20 08 ), and w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. E n o c h d idn o t a lle g e th a t h e e x p e r ie n c e dp a s t p e r s e c u tio n o ra n yh arm in I ndone s i a . S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s de ni a l of w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l be c aus e E noc h di d note s t abl i s h ac l e arpr obabi l i tyof pe r s e c ut i on on a c c o u n t o f

h is C h r is tian r e lig io n , se e L olon g v. G on zales , 4 8 4 F .3 d1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n b a n c ) , o rh is s ta tu s a s ap ub lis h e ro f aC h r is tian n e w s le tte r , se e Fa kh ry , 524 F . 3d a t1066. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s f i ndi ng th a t E n o c h f

a ile dto e s tab lis h ap a tte rn o rp r a c tic e o f p e r s e c u tio n o f

C h r is tian s in Indo nesi a. See W

akkaryv. H

older , 55 8 F . 3d 10 49 , 10 60 -62 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). E no ch do es no tchal l enge the agency’ s deni alof hi s a sy l um appl i cat i on as t i m e-b arredo r th e d en i al o f h i s ap p l i cat i o n fo r rel i ef u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n st T o rtu r e . Se e M

a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned SEP: 

*Time and Date:*                         12 p.m.-4 p.m., May 31, 2007 (Closed).                     

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                     

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                     

*Matters to be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to RFA DD07-012, “Research Cooperative Agreement to Promote the                               ( print page 17169)                            Health of People with Intellectual Disabilities.”                     

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Juliana Cyril, Ph.D., Associate Director for Policy and Peer Review, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone 404.639.4639.                     

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 [FR Doc. E7-6444 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GORDON A. TURPIN, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 418, 35 CMR 390

No. 18,376

May 28, 1965

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Hagopian,*and *Captain Clifford B. Hearn, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Edwin G. Schuclc, Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper,*and *First Lieutenant William W. Nelson*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

By an order dated February 24, 1965, this Court denied accused’s petition for grant of review of the decision of the board of review as to his conviction by general court-martial. Thereafter, he submitted a petition for reconsideration in light of United States v Gallagher, 15 USCMA 391, 35 CMR 363, then pending decision. Our opinion in the cited case is dispositive here.

The petition for reconsideration is, therefore, denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

D.C., a minor,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Gary Riley, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-208

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

On July 26, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed for failure to serve process upon the defendants. Plaintiff

has made no response to this order, and the time in which to do so has now expired.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case be, and is, DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to serve

process upon the defendants. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

s/Algenon L. Marbley 

United States District Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00208-ALM-MRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/21/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>