alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Projections for 1995

              																																										United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics.								*Employment Projections for 1995 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 2197*.															Washington, D.C: 										U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 												March 1984,												https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5235,				accessed on September 25, 2024.										    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 19

- 1725

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Cody Kinzie Dittmar

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque

____________

Submitted: April 13, 2020 Filed: April 28, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLL OTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Cody Dittmar pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court found that Dittmar qualified for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on two prior Iowa convictions for arson and one prior Wisconsin conviction for burglary. Dittmar previously appealed his designation as-2- an armed career criminal, we vacated h is sentence on grounds not relevant to this appeal

, and we remanded the matter for resentencing. United States v. Dittmar , 897 F.3d 958, 959, 961 (8th Cir. 2018). On remand, the district court once again concluded Dittmar qualified as an armed career criminal on the basis of the same state convictions. Dittmar again appeals, once more challenging his designation as
an armed career criminal.

In light of United States v. Franklin , 2019 WI 64, 928 N.W.2d 545, which was decided after Dittmar’s resentencing, the Government now concedes that Dittmar does not qualify as an armed career criminal because his Wisconsin burglary conviction is not an ACCA predicate offense

. See United States v. Webster , 784 F. App’x 975 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). As such, in accordance with th e parties’ request, we again vacate Dittmar’s sentence and remand this matter to the district court for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement.

______________________________
(Reap. Dec. 9870)

#### Brooks Paper Co., by Koeller-Struss Co. Agts. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 519; 738.

(Decided December 14, 1960)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*591Kao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed above have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between counsel for the parties hereto that the merchandise and issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed above, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues in *United States*v. *American Express Co.,*Volume 95, Treasury Decisions No. 11, dated March 17, 1960, A.R.D. 120.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market values or the prices, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States were the appraised values less the amounts added under duress in accordance with the provisions of section 503(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in A.R.D. 120 be incorporated with the record in these cases and that these appeals for reappraisement be submitted on this stipulation.

The record in the cited case has been received in evidence herein.

On the agreed facts and the cited authority, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the amounts added under duress in accordance with the provisions of section 503 (b) of said act, prior to its repeal.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEXTER BROWN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

SAHIR NASEER, M.D.,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 17073

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 00225

- WBS

CKD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Dexter Brown a ppeals pro se from the district

court’ s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 17073

2004)

. We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Brown failed

to raise a genuine dispute of materi al fact as to whether Dr. Naseer was

“subjective ly aware” that his failure to order requested testing and his order to

restrict Brown’s fluid intake “created a substantial risk of harm” to Brown. See id.

at 1060; see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (“[A] complaint that a

physician has bee n negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not

state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.” );

Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981) (difference of opinion

between prisoner and medical staff does not give rise to a deliberate indifference

claim)

.

We reject as unsupported by the record Brown’s contention that he alleged a

due process claim

.

AFFIRMED.
#### Jerry GEORGE, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al.

No. 98-CC-0802.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re Volunteers of America/N.La., Inc;—Defendant(s); applying for supervisory *52and/or remedial writs; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 184,769; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW97-1589.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 92 (Monday, May 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9175]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request; copies available from: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549.

Extension:
    Rules 7a-15 thru 7a-37; OMB Control No. 3235-0132; SEC File No. 
270-115.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Rules 7a-15 through 7a-37 (17 CFR 260.7a-15-7a-37) under the Trust 
Indenture Act of 1939 set forth the general requirements relating to 
applications, statements and reports that must be filed under the Act 
by issuers and trustees qualifying indentures under that Act for 
offerings of debt securities. The respondents are persons and entities 
subject to the Trust Indenture Act requirements. Rules 7a-15 through 
7a-37 are disclosure guidelines and do not directly result in any 
collection of information. The Rules are assigned only one burden hour 
for administrative convenience.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed 
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503; or send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b6f4a5d424f747944585f404e596b444649054e445b054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="541035223d300b063b27203f3126143b39367a313b247a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley 
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#66363427392b070f0a04091e2615030548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c4c4e5d43517d75707e73645c6f797f327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 7, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9175 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Employmentlaw guide.**
 
2003 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:L 1.7/2:EM 7/12/
Item Number:0745-A (online)
CGP systemNumber:000874957
 
September 27, 2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MULBERRY SQUARE ELDER CARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 546 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
1 In The


### Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 24

- 00041

- CV

__________________ TERRY HOYT, DOWELL ARMORY, LLC, AND JAMES MICHAEL DOWELL, AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF KEVEN DOWELL , Appellant s

V.

SHOOTER’S STATION ARMS, INC. , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20

- 03

- 03005

- CV

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION
Terry Hoyt, D owell Armory, LLC, and J ames Michael Dowell, as
Independent Executor of The Estate of Keven Dowell
, Appellant s , filed unopposed

motion s to dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). They filed the motion
before the appellate court issued a decision in the appeal. We grant the motion and
dismiss the appeal

.2 APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 7, 2024 Opinion Delivered August 8, 202 4
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
# C_2012235EN.01001102.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 7 June 2012 — Aboubacar Diakite v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-285/12)

2012/C 235/21

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aboubacar Diakite

Applicant:

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 15(c) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees, or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, (1) be interpreted as meaning that that provision offers protection only in a situation of ‘internal armed conflict’, as interpreted by international humanitarian law and, in particular, by reference to Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (for the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, for the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, and on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, respectively)?

1

If the concept of ‘internal armed conflict’ referred to in Article 15(c) of Directive 2004/83 is to be given an interpretation independent of Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, what, in that case, are the criteria for determining whether such an ‘internal armed conflict’ exists?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

1

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

ALYSSA RENEE CHRISTINA , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2787

[ August 29, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Scott Ira Suskauer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2023

- CF

003464

- AXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Hunter Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

C IKLIN , C ONNER and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### J. J. Murphy & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6506.

Entry No. 701582, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, June 1943, etc.

Certified June 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 17, 1943, etc.

(Decided November 13, 1946)

*B. A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*Keefe,*Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                             School Specialty, Inc.
                 Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
     Fiscal Years Ended April 28, 2001, April 27, 2002, and April 26, 2003

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Balance at   Charged to     Charged to                      Balance
                                                Beginning    Costs and        Other                       at End of
Description                          Date       of Period     Expenses      Accounts        Deductions      Period         Date
-----------                    --------------   ----------   ----------   -------------  ---------------  ----------  --------------
<S>                            <C>              <C>          <C>          <C>            <C>              <C>         <C>
Allowance for doubtful
  Accounts ..................  April 29, 2000   1,744,000      545,000    3,570,000 (a)  (2,336,000) (b)   3,523,000  April 28, 2001
                               April 28, 2001   3,523,000     (663,000)     765,000 (a)    (906,000) (b)   2,719,000  April 27, 2002
                               April 27, 2002   2,719,000      793,000      934,000 (a)    (650,000) (b)   3,796,000  April 26, 2003


Restructuring reserve .......  April 29, 2000      65,000    4,500,000            -      (2,052,000)       2,513,000  April 28, 2001
                               April 28, 2001   2,513,000            -            -      (1,650,000)         863,000  April 27, 2002
                               April 27, 2002     863,000            -            -        (406,000)         457,000  April 26, 2003
</TABLE>

------------
(a) Allowance for doubtful accounts acquired in purchase acquisitions.
(b) Represents net of write-offs of uncollectable accounts receivable and
recoveries of previously written-off accounts receivable.
#### Nathan Newman et al. *v.*United States

No. 6519.

Entry No. 737939, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, December 4, 1945, etc.

Certified December 4, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 7, 1946, etc.

(Decided November 15, 1946)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have submitted for decision the appeals listed in schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, upon a stipulation to the effect that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence herein.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export value of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the values found by the appraiser less any amounts added by the importers on *entry to*meet advances made by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<SEQUENCE>3
<FILENAME>robinsoncert 123101.txt
                                                                Exhibit 99.1



                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



               In connection with the Quarterly Report of Uptowner Inns, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2001
as filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



_____________________________________
/s/ David Robinson
Chief Financial Officer
______________________, 2002
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Riparian research and management : past, present,future
 
volume 1 |volume 2 | 
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.88:RMRS-GTR-377; A13.88:RMRS-GTR-411
Item Number:0083-B-06 (online)

System Number:001088443
May 19, 2021
Before the Third Division,

October 14, 1942

No. 47641.

#### Protests 807463-G, etc., of Abels Wasserberg & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.