alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 96-1602

___________ Jeffrey Jay Jones, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 25, 1996 Filed: June 27, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.

After Jeffrey Jay Jones pleaded guilty to drug and weapon charge s under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court 1 de parted upward from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, an d sentenced Jones to a total of 270 months imprisonment. We affirmed Jones' s convictions and sentence on direct appeal. United States v. Jones , 90 8 F.2d 365, 366-69 (8th Cir. 1990). Jones now appeals from the distric t court's o rder denying his subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. After d e novo review, see Holl oway v. United States , 960 F.2d 1348, 1351 (8th Cir. 1992), we affirm.

### -2- We conclude the district court properly rejected Jones's challeng e to the upward departu re from the Guidelines range, because that claim was raised and decided adversely to him on direct appeal. See Dall v. United States , 957 F.2d 571, 572 (8th Cir. 1992) (per c uriam). Jones also argues that trial counsel wa s ineffective for failing to challenge the denial of Jones's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Even assuming this claim-- which is raised for the first time on appeal--is properly before us, w e held on direct appeal that the district court was well within it s discretion in refusing to allow Jones to withdraw his pleas of guilty. Se e Dyer v. United States , 23 F.3d 1424, 1426 (8th Cir. 1994) (no ineffective assist ance if claim defendant alleges counsel should have pursued i s meritle ss). Finally, because the record clearly shows that Jones wa s carrying a firearm and drugs when he was arrested for the charge s underl ying his convictions, we reject Jones's Baileychallenge to hi s section 924(c) conviction. See Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501, 507-09 (1995) (defining "use" to preserve "carry " as alternative basis for § 924(c)(1) charge); United States v. White , 81 F.3d 80, 83 (8th Cir. 1996 ) (to sustain conviction for "carrying" firearm under § 924(c), government must prove defendant "bore the firearm on or about his person during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense").
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Each depositor insured to at least $250,000 per insured bank
 Advanced Search
 Home
				|
				Deposit Insurance
				|
				Consumer Protection
				|
				Industry Analysis
				|
				Regulations & Examinations
				|
				Asset Sales
				|
				News & Events
				|
				About FDIC
 Bank Find
							Are My Deposits Insured?
							Uninsured Investments
							The Deposit Insurance Fund
							International Deposit Insurance
 Consumer News & Information
							Loans & Mortgages
							Banking & Your Money
							Financial Education & Literacy
							Community Affairs
							Identity Theft & Fraud
							Consumer Financial Privacy
 Bank Data & Statistics
							Research & Analysis
							Failed Banks
 Bank Examinations
							Laws & Regulations
							Resources for Bank Officers & Directors
							FDIC*connect*
							Required Financial Reports
							Examiner Training Programs
 Loan Sales
							Real Estate Sales
							Financial Asset Sales
							Servicing Sales Announcements
							Other Asset Sales
							Historical Sales
 Press Releases
							Online Press Room
							Conferences & Events
							Financial Institution Letters
							Special Alerts
							Letters to the Editor/Opinion Editorials
							Speeches & Testimony
 Mission & Purpose
							Advisory Committees
							Careers with the FDIC
							Management Team
							Plans & Reports
							What We Can Do for You
							Diversity at the FDIC
 Home > About FDIC >  

No FEAR ActNo FEAR Act

	

	On May 15, 2002, Congress enacted the �Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002,� which is now known as the No FEAR Act.  One purpose of the Act is to �require that Federal agencies be accountable for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws.�  Public Law 107-174, Summary.  In support of this purpose, Congress found that �agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination.�  Public Law 107-174, Title I, General Provisions, section 101(1).

No FEAR Act NoticeNotice of rights and protections available under Federal antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws pursuant to the No FEAR Act.

Whistleblower Retaliation ProtectionAny FDIC employee or applicant for a FDIC position is protected against negative employment actions taken in retaliation for making protected disclosures.



Equal Employment Opportunity Data Posted Pursuant to the No FEAR ActLast Updated
	02/09/2011


	[email protected]
 Home
				|
				Contact Us
				|
				Search
				|
				Help
				|
				SiteMap
				|
				Forms
                	|
				En Español
 Website Policies
				|
				Privacy Policy
				|
				USA.gov
				|
				FDIC Office of Inspector General
 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center
				|
				FDIC Open Government Webpage	|
                	No  FEAR Act Data
Telephone: (210) 335-2511 LORINA RUMMEL JUDGE, 144TM DISTRICT COURT CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 2.199 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 December4, 2015 The Court ofCriminal Appeals ofTexas P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 RE: WR-83,322-02 Trial Court 2007-CR-7397-W2 Ex Parte Robert Piazzi 

# &3/322-C2.

Facsimile: (210) 335-2503



### To The Honorable Court ofCriminal Appeals: By order dated July 21, 2015, the trial court ordered attorneys Shawn C. Brown, Neil A. Calfas, and Barry Hitchings to send a copy oftheirrespective affidavits to the applicant regarding the above referenced writ application. 

### On November 30, 2015, the trial courtreceived a letterfrom Applicantwherein he states he did not receive affidavits from Neil A. Calfas or Barry Hitchings, and thus has not had an opportunity to file a briefin response to the affidavits. This courthas directed the District Clerkto send Mr. Calfas' and Mr. Hitchings' affidavits to applicant. To afford applicant an opportunity to file any supplemental documents with the trial court, this court is requesting the Court ofCriminal Appeals withhold any ruling on 

### applicant's post-conviction writ for 45 days from receipt ofthis letter.

cc: Robert Piazzi TDCJ No. 01766863 Jordan Unit 1992 Helton Road 

### Pampa, Texas 79065 Sincerely, 

# yuhfr Judge LorinaRummel 

### 144th Judicial District Court Bexar County, Texas RECEIVED IN 

### COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS


### DEC 10 2015

AbelAcosta, Clerk
No. 41950.

#### Petition 5853-R of A. Cohen & Sons Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The broken stoppers together with their respective bottles were returned to the manufacturer for the purpose of repair and there was an understanding between the importer and the appraiser’s office that these bottles might be reimported into the United States upon payment of duty on the value of the repairs only. The importer was forced to pay duty on the full value of the repaired merchandise rather than the value of the repairs only. The record established the good faith of the importer and the petition was granted.
No. 62050.

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 312739-K (New York).

Opinion by

Foed, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of beaded bags the same in all material respects *594as those the classification of which was involved in Abstract 56124, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 50632.

#### Petition 6476-R of Alberti Importing & Exporting Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An appeal for reappraisement was filed, but action thereon was suspended pending decision in another case involving similar merchandise shipped during 1936. (See *Luigi Vitelli Elvea, Inc.*v. *United States,*9 Cust. Ct. 466, R. D. 4661, affirmed in *United States*v. *Luigi Vitelli Elvea, Inc.,*11 id. 437, R. D. 5941.) Thereafter, said appeal for reappraisement was sub*310mitted for decision on a stipulation incorporating the record in the decided case,, and final judgment was entered on the basis of export value at prices higher than the entered value. The court was of the opinion that the established facts in the instant case are analogous to those in Abstracts 49970 and 49986 and held that the observations of the court concerning the nature of the proof, the sufficiency thereof, and the character of the witnesses who appeared in the cited eases were equally applicable to and descriptive of the evidence submitted and of the witnesses who appeared herein. Prom an examination of the record and a consideratipn of the facts in the case, it was held that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that found on final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or to misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. 'The petition was therefore granted.
Skip Links

USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Miscellaneous Investigations Series I-1420 (NL-17)

About USGS /  Science Topics /  Maps, Products & Publications /  Education / Publication: FAQ

Pubs Warehouse

## Quaternary Geologic Map of the Sudbury 4° x 6° Quadrangle, United States and Canada

#### *Edited and integrated by* David S. Fullerton*State and Province compilations by* Edward V. Sado, David S. Fullerton, C.L. Baker, *and* William R. Farrand

| This map is part of the Quaternary Geologic Atlas of the United States (I-1420). It was first published as a printed edition in 1993. The geologic data have now been captured digitally and are presented here along with images of the printed map sheet and component parts as PDF files.
*I-1420 (NL-17)*Map PDF (3.8 MB)                    Right-Click to 'Save As' or 'Download'*I-1420 (NL-17)*Map PDF (3.8 MB)                  Right-Click to 'Save As' or 'Download' | Version 1.1

Posted December 2002
- Map PDF (3.8 MB)
(This text-only version of the map is accessible as defined in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Amendments of 1998.)
- Sudbury metadata  TXT (35 KB)
Download ZIP archives
- ArcInfo shapefiles (9 MB)
- ArcInfo exportfiles (7 MB)
- PDF files of map (62 MB) |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format (PDF); the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Reader or similar software is required to view it. Download the latest version of Acrobat Reader, free of charge or go to access.adobe.com for free tools that allow visually impaired users to read PDF files.

| AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices                                                                                                                                                               |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/imap/i-1420/nl-17/Questions or Assistance: USGS Web ContactPage Last Modified: Wed Nov 30 17:33 EDT 2016 |  |

----
----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy:

(2005/C 43/01)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Mid-term review of the Lisbon Strategy: Communication from the Commission on Strengthening the implementation of the European Employment Strategy; Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States; Recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the implementation of Member States' employment policies (presented by the Commission) (COM(2004) 239 final – 2004/0082 (CNS));

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission on 7 April 2004 and of the Council on 16 April 2004, under the first paragraph of Article 265 and of Article 128 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult it on this matter;

Having regard to the decision of its president on 5 April 2004 to instruct its Commission for Economic and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on the subject;

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 152/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 6 July 2004 by the Commission for Economic and Social Policy (rapporteur: Ms Pauliina Haijanen, Member of the Board of the Regional Council of Southwest Finland, First Vice-chairman of Laitila Town Council (FI/EPP);

adopted the following opinion at its 56th plenary session on 29 and 30 September 2004 (session of 29 September).

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

Overall priorities of the Lisbon strategy

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Mid-term review of the Lisbon strategy

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Strengthening the employment strategy

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Brussels, 29 September 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00166

- CV

GALVESTON COUNTY HEA LTH DISTRICT , Appellant

V.

ERICA HANLEY , Appellee

Appeal from the 56th District Court of Galveston County. (Tr. Ct. No. 12

- CV

- 2314 ).

TO THE 56TH DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 4th day of December 2014 , the case upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is a statutory interlocutory appeal from the

order signed by the trial court on February 19, 2014. After

submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments

properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was no

reversible e rror in the trial court’s order. Accordingly, the

Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, Galveston County

Health District, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for obse rvance.Judgment rendered December 4, 2014.

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

Opinion delivered by Justice Massengale.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it du ly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

February 1 3 , 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
No. 59183.

protest 226607-K (Los Angeles).

#### Universal Consolidated Oil Co. and A. E. Coppersmith *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of seamless steel A. P. I. casings similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Humble Oil & Refining Co. et al.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 32, C. D. 1577), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2021108EN.01000101.xml

| 26.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2019-2020 SESSION

Sittings of 25 to 28 March 2019

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 438, 18.12.2020.

The texts adopted of 26 March 2019 concerning the discharge for the financial year 2017 have been published in OJ L 249, 27.9.2019.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
Case No. 5,479/

#### The GLEN.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 375.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

July, 1863.

Prize — Wrongful Arrest — Discharge.

Vessel and cargo discharged from seizure and restored to the claimant, with costs and damages, because of a wrongful arrest

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

This vessel and cargo were captured at sea, June 20, 1S03, by the United States gunboat Columbia, and were sent into this port for adjudication. The defence to the action is, that the vessel was a British bottom, lawfully on a voyage from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, to Matamoras, Mexico, on the voyage upon which she was seized. The papers returned with the_ prize are, a certificate of British registry executed to Nehemiah K. Clements, of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, as owner of the vessel, showing that she was built at Nova Scotia, August 4, 1S59; a shipping agreement, entered into with the crew in November and December, 1SG2, for a voyage from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, to a port or ports in the British West Indies, thence to a port or ports to which the vessel may lawfully go, for a term not to exceed six months, to her final discharge in Nova Scotia; a certificate of the entry and clearance of the vessel by the British vice-consul at Matamoras, April 22, 18G3; a journal or log account of the voyage of the vessel from Matamoras, commencing in June, 1S63; and a manifest of 84 bales of cotton from Matamoras to Nassau, N. P., dated May 23, 1SG3.

From the proofs la preparatorio it seems that the vessel was on her voyage from Mat-amoras to Nassau,' but was a bad sailer, and, owing to the state of the weather, was unable to make,. her course across the Gulf Stream; that it was attempted by her master, with the consent of her supercargo, to carry her to the port of New York; that her master was attempting so to navigate her when she was seized; that she was not making for any other port; and that when seized she was, as was supposed, from 80 to 100 miles off Cape Hatteras. Her ship’s company were all British subjects, and none of them had any interest in the vessel or cargo. The vessel was loaded with cotton alone. No reasonable suspicion against the integrity of the voyage is made to appear upon the testimony, either from her position or her lading, or the conduct of the crew previously, or when she was captured, or her consorting with or being connected with any other vessel or voyage. Nor is it indicated to the court, by any argument, brief, or suggestion on the part of the United States, that the captured vessel committed any culpable act on her voyage. It is, therefore, ordered and decreed, that the vessel and cargo be discharged from seizure and be restored to the claimant, with costs and damages, because of the wrongful arrest Decree accordingly.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6203

HENRY L. CLARK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LAFAYETTE HALL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-107-5-BO) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry L. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Ray Garvey, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Clark v. Hall , No. CA-97-107-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 1997). 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
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         (43189)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    71882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     560289
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                605600
<PP&E>                                         1246873
<DEPRECIATION>                                  155626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2022519
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2981512
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                       7545
<COMMON>                                        125734
<OTHER-SE>                                   (3079741)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2022519
<SALES>                                        4087205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4087205
<CGS>                                          3948073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3948073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                397220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (197451)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (258088)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (258088)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (258088)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (258088)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
No. 50251.

#### Petitions 6491-R, etc., of Perugina, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In addition to the testimonj' of the witness for the petitioner, which fully supported the allegations in the petition, the former examiner of merchandise who passed upon the instant merchandise testified that *272in his opinion there was no attempt to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case. Upon the entire record it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States, conceal, or misrepresent the facts of the ease, or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petitions were therefore granted.