alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 11 2004

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN K. BURKHOLDER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

L.E. BRUCE; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

KANSAS,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 03-3259

(D.C. No. 02-CV-3275-JWL)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , ANDERSON , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Petitioner-appellant, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s order

denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district

court granted a certificate of appealability to consider whether the state trial court

had violated petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights (1) by denying petitioner’s

motion to substitute counsel the day before his trial for burglary and theft, or (2)

by denying his motion in the alternative to proceed pro se in that trial.

Petitioner alleges that the state trial court abused its discretion by finding

his request to substitute counsel on the eve of trial untimely and by not making

further inquiry into why he had requested new counsel. Petitioner also asserts

that the district court committed reversible error when it determined that he was

not competent to represent himself because he was illiterate and admitted that he

did not understand the charges against him. We affirm the denial of petitioner’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus for substantially the reasons stated by the

district court.

We review a district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of

fact, if any, for clear error. LaFevers v. Gibson , 182 F.3d 705, 711 (10th Cir.

1999). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2), no writ of habeas corpus shall issue

unless the decision of the state court either was “contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States; or . . . was based on an unreasonable
-3-

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.”

Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the standards applicable to

petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, we hold that petitioner has raised no ground

for a writ to issue in this case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the denial of a writ of

habeas corpus for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
No. 47024.

#### Protest 864728-G of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the microscope sets in question are the same in all material-respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Wolf*(26 C. C. P. A. 243, C. A. D. 23). In accordance therewith the sets were-held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 228 (b) as claimed.
#### Susan Taylor MARTIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 98-1639.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 14, 1999.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001056756
<NAME> NBC ACQUISTION CORP.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,059,660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,004,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                   165,899
<INVENTORY>                                 49,878,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            76,626,573
<PP&E>                                      31,212,534
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,024,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             142,906,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,156,391
<BONDS>                                    214,259,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,578
<OTHER-SE>                                 (92,709,343)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               142,906,843
<SALES>                                    217,516,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           217,516,312
<CGS>                                      137,709,320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              137,709,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            58,854,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               134,661
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          22,502,933
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,684,623)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   574,482
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,259,105)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,259,105)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (2.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.37)


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Alfred BROWN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 98-KH-0236.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Brown, Alfred;—Plaintiffis); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ: Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 97-4711; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 97-KH-12132.

Application dismissed at relator’s request.

LEMMON, J., not on panel.
# C_2012065EN.01001901.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/19

---

Action brought on 4 January 2012 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)

(Case T-5/12)

2012/C 65/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 November 2011 in Case R 992/2011-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks Department) of 11 March 2011 relating to Community trade mark application CTM 9094459 in so far as the application was rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 November 2011 in Case R 992/2011-4 and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks Department) of 11 March 2011 relating to Community trade mark application CTM 9094459 in so far as the application was rejected;

| — | Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Wash & Coffee’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 37 and 43

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as OHIM failed to examine the facts on which it based its decision in the manner required and infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for is distinctive

Pleas in law:

---
# C_2012165EN.01002101.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/21

---

Action brought on 8 March 2012 — Bode Chemie v OHIM — Laros (sterilina)

(Case T-114/12)

2012/C 165/36

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bode Chemie GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laros Srl (Cremona, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2012 in Case R 2423/2010-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2012 in Case R 2423/2010-4; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party before the Board of Appeal.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of the word elements ‘sterilina’, in the colours white and red for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — Community trade mark applied for No 8120032.

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘STERILLIUM’ No 221168 for goods in Class 5; Figurative Community mark in the colours blue and white ‘BODE Sterillium’ No 6262257 for goods in Class 5.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2007/2009, in that contrary to the opinion of the Board of Appeal, a global assessment of the relevant criteria in respect of the identity and/or similarity between the goods, of the similarity between the signs and the distinctive character of the opposing mark leads to a determination of a likelihood of confusion for the public.

Pleas in law:

---
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT


 


WHEREAS,  Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Prem
Nath (the “Executive”) entered into an
Executive Employment Agreement dated as of July 19, 2006 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the terms of the
Agreement relating to salary and bonus compensation,


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and Executive agree that the Base Salary
(as defined in the Agreement) of the Executive shall be $180,000 beginning January 7,
2008, and that Section 3(b) of the Agreement is amended and
superseded in its entirety to read as follows:


 


b)  Bonus
Compensation.  As
further compensation, the Company may pay to the Executive an annual bonus of
up to fifty percent (50%) of Base Salary, at such times and in such amounts as
the Board and its Compensation Committee may determine in their discretion
based on the Executive’s individual performance


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties has executed this Amendment, in the case
of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of January 7, 2008.


 


	
  COMPANY:

  	
  ASCENT
  SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/MATTHEW
  FOSTER

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Matthew
  Foster

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Chief
  Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  EXECUTIVE:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/
  Prem Nath

  
	
   

  	
  Prem
  Nath
Exhibit
32.2
 
 Certification of CEO and CFO Furnished 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 Annual Report of Samaritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Eugene Boyle, certify
for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States
Code that, to the best of my knowledge,
 
 (i)
the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 
 (ii)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  Date:
                    June
      17, 2009/s/
      Eugene BoyleEugene
      Boyle
                      Chief
      Financial Officer
                      Chief Operations Officer
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015190EN.01001001.xml

| 8.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2015 — Tomana and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-190/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures imposed on certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Zimbabwe - Restrictions on entry into and transit through the European Union - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Fundamental rights - Proportionality))

(2015/C 190/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Johannes Tomana (Harare, Zimbabwe) and the 120 other applicants named in the annex to the judgment (represented by: initially by D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester and R. Lööf, Barristers, and by M. O’Kane, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Vaughan, M. Lester and M. Lööf)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, M. Veiga and A. Vitro, Agents); European Commission (represented by M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Georgieva, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, C. Murrell and M. Holt, Agents, and by S. Lee, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/97/CFSP of 17 February 2012 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 47, p. 50), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 151/2012 of 21 February 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 49, p. 2), and Council Implementing Decision 2012/124/CFSP of 27 February 2012 implementing Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other applicants listed in the annex hereto to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Johannes Tomana and the 120 other applicants listed in the annex hereto to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.

---
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011�1003

Combined Multibeam and LIDAR Bathymetry Data from Eastern Long Island Sound and Westernmost Block Island Sound � A Regional Perspective

----

## Bathymetry 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00254- CV In re Epicurean Deli, LLC, A Texas Limite d Li abili ty Com pany; Flying Tomat o P izza Kit chen, Inc., A Texas Corporat ion; and Denise Trevino, an Ind ividu al

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Re lator s h ave fi le d a mot ion to dis mis s thi s p e tit ion fo r wri t of

mand a mus . In th e ir mot ion , th e y

re pr e se nt t

hat th e re a l pa

rt y in i nte re st a g re e s to the dis mis sa l. We gra nt t he mot ion

and dis mis s th is p e tit ion

fo r wri t of

ma nd a mus .

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Filed: Jul y

20, 2005
#### In the Matter of Patricia Seymour, Appellant, v Rickie J. Seymour, Respondent.

[701 NYS2d 568]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly determined, pursuant to the factors set forth in *Fox v Fox*(177 AD2d 209, 210), that it was in the child’s best interests to award the parties joint custody with primary physical placement with respondent, despite the fact that the child would thereby be separated from her half-sister *(see, Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 173). The court expressed concern about petitioner’s drinking habits. In addition, the court noted that the child had always resided in the marital home where respondent would continue to reside, and would be required to relocate to another town if placed with petitioner. The court further noted that the child had a close relationship with paternal relatives who lived nearby. There is no basis to conclude that the court’s determination “lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” *(White v White,*209 AD2d 949, 950, *lv dismissed*85 NY2d 924; *see, Matter of King v King,*251 AD2d 1028, 1029).

Part of the Law Guardian’s role is to help children express their wishes to the court *(see,*Family Ct Act § 241); however, because the child was only four years old the court improperly considered the child’s wishes *(see, Matter of Jensen v Harris,*197 AD2d 917, 918). Nevertheless, we conclude that the error is harmless because the record otherwise supports the courts’ determination. Finally, the length of closing arguments is a matter resting within the sole discretion of the trial court *(see generally,*Family Ct Act § 165 [a]; CPLR 4011), and the court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the summation of each party to five minutes. (Appeal from Order of Jefferson County Family Court, Morgan, J. — Custody.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Callahan, JJ.
132 STAT. 1624 PUBLIC LAW 115–225—JULY 31, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1182: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): Aug. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Vol. 164 (2018): July 24, 25, considered and passed House, amended. 

July 31, Senate concurred in House amendments. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–225 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Flood Insurance Program Extension Act of 2018’’. 

SEC. 2. PROGRAM EXTENSION. 

(a) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘November 30, 2018’’. 

(b) PROGRAM EXPIRATION.—Section 1319 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by striking 

‘‘September 30, 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘November 30, 2018’’. 

Approved July 31, 2018. 

National Flood 

Insurance 

Program 

Extension Act 

of 2018. 

42 USC 4001 

note. 

July 31, 2018 

[S. 1182] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Site visits support operations and real property accounting

By Tim Hoyle  DLA Disposition Services

                Camp Arifjan, Kuwait  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT