alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1275

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 7172 North Tongass Highway, Ward Cove,

Alaska, as the ‘‘Alice R. Brusich Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
 †

2

S 1275 ES

1 SECTION 1. ALICE R. BRUSICH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

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

3 Postal Service located at 7172 North Tongass Highway,

4 in Ward Cove, Alaska, shall be known and designated as

5 the ‘‘Alice R. Brusich Post Office Building’’.

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Alice R. Brusich Post

10 Office Building’’.

Passed the Senate July 1, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1275

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostBrusich Post Office Building’’. way, Ward Cove, Alaska, as the ‘‘Alice R. al Service located at 7172 North Tongass High-
Exhibit 10.3
 AMENDMENT
To The
Hudson Valley Bank
Supplemental Retirement Plan of 1995
 THIS AMENDMENT (the Amendment) TO THE HUDSON VALLEY BANK SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT
PLAN OF 1995 (the Plan or the Agreement)
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 The following definitions if specifically identified in the original Plan are hereby replaced in
their entirety, and if not found in the original Plan are hereby added:
 Aggregated Plans
 Applicable Guidance
 Change in Control
 Change in Ownership.




---



##### 



Change in Effective Control.
 Change in Ownership of a Substantial Portion of Corporate Assets.
 Disability
 Plan
 Plan Sponsor
 Section 409A
 Separation from Service
 Employee Participants.
 Effect of Leave.




---



##### 



Termination of Employment.
 Independent Contractor Participants.
 Specified Employee th
 Treasury Regulations
 The following articles if specifically identified in the original Plan are hereby replaced in their
entirety, and if not found in the original Plan are hereby added:
 Prohibition on Acceleration of Payments.




---



##### 



Delay in Payment by Plan Sponsor.
  Payments subject to Section 162(m) .
  th) rd
 Payments that would violate Federal securities laws or other applicable
law.
 Other events and conditions.
  Treatment of Payment as Made on Designated Payment Date.




---



##### 



Claims Procedure.
 Claim.
 Claim Decision.
     Review Procedures.




---



##### 



Calculation of Time Periods.
 Failure of Plan to Follow Procedures.
 Failure of Claimant to Follow Procedures.
 Amendment
 Plan Termination
 Corporate Dissolution or Bankruptcy




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Discretionary Termination
      Compliance with Section 409A and Authoritative Guidance.
 Status of Plan




---



##### 



The following Article is hereby deleted:
 17. LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF BENEFITS
 IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE
 WITNESS:
    
    
    
    FOR THE PLAN SPONSOR:(name)
    
    
    
    (name of Plan Sponsor)(signature of witness)
    
    
    
    (signature of authorized officer of Plan Sponsor)(title if any)
    
    
    
    (title of signing officer)THE PARTICIPANT:(signature)(print name)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7689** 

ROBERT LEE FOSTER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. CECILIA REYNOLDS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee , and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondent

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 9:14

- cv - 03853

- TMC )

Submitted : March 10, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Robert Lee Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Foster seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magist rate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)

. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims i s debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural rul ing is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that
Foster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny his pending motion, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JAMES A. PRATT, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-35887 

D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00108-DCN 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho

David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

James A. Pratt appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in 

this foreclosure action brought by the United States to enforce liens on Pratt’s 

property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Berezovsky v. Moniz, 869 F.3d 923, 927 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.

* 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

SEP 26 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-35887 

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the United 

States because Pratt failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether 

the Farm Service Agency owned the debt secured by a deed of trust on Pratt’s 

property and whether Pratt was in default on that debt. See Anderson v. Liberty 

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (“Only disputes over facts that might affect 

the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of 

summary judgment.”); United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 726-729

(1979) (explaining that “federal law governs questions involving the rights of the 

United States arising under nationwide federal programs,” but state law provides 

the content where a national rule is unnecessary to protect federal interest); U.S. 

Bank Nat’l Ass’n N.D. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 337 P.3d 605, 610 (Idaho 2014) 

(Idaho foreclosure requirements for a loan secured by a deed of trust). 

The district court judge did not plainly err in declining to recuse himself sua 

sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 455 because Pratt failed to demonstrate any grounds for 

recusal. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (listing circumstances requiring recusal); United 

States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 911-13 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of 

review and explaining that § 455 “asks whether a reasonable person perceives a 

significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the 

merits;” “the reasonable person is not someone who is hypersensitive or unduly 

suspicious, but rather is a well-informed, thoughtful observer” (citation and 
3 17-35887 

internal quotation marks omitted)). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S
NO. WR-94,315-01

EX P ARTE JONATHAN ADRIAN G ARCIA, A ppl icant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W16-59669-V( A) IN THE 292ND DISTRICT COURT

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant orig inally pleade d g uilty to ro b b ery and was place d on defe rre d adjudication community supervision for a period of five y ear s. L ater , he was adjudi cate d g uilty and sentenced
to fo u r y ea rs’ imprisonment. Applicant did not appea l his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to thi s Court. See T E X
. C O D E C R I M
. P R O C
. art. 11.07. Applicant contends that he was denied pre-s en t en ce jail time cre dit, his continued incar cer ation is wrong beca use he has chang ed and has a family to support, he cannot fulfill his plans
to be succe ssful while in prison and wants a second chance, an d h e h as l ear ned his lesson. Applicant’s claim conce rning pre- sentenc e jail time cre dit is dismiss ed. Ex parte Y ba r r a , 1492

S.W .3d 147, 148–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (the appropr iate reme dy for obtaining pre- sentenc e jail time cre dit is to prese nt the issue to the trial court by way of a nunc pro tunc motion, and if the trial
court fails to respond, to seek relief in the C o urt of Appea ls by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus). Applicant’s rema ining claims are without merit and are denied. Acc ordi n g ly , this application is denied in part and dismiss ed in part. Ex parte Dee ringer , 210 S.W .3d 616, 617–18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

Filed: Nove mber 23, 2022 Do not publish
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

# Susquehanna employees honored for saving the life of a teammate

By Jessica RomanDLA Distribution Public Affairs

                SUSQUEHANNA, Pennsylvania  –              Defense Logistics Agency Distribution

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

awardsPeople and Culture
The HONORABLE EDWARD L. FILIPPINE, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 96-1920

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Terrance Eugene Bell, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: August 21, 1996

 Filed: August 26, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Terrance Eugene Bell challenges the 54-month sentence imposed by the

district court following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession

1

of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

We reject Bell's contention on appeal that the district court

miscalculated his criminal history category by failing to treat two prior

offenses as "related" under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2). "[P]rior sentences are

considered related if they resulted from offenses that (1) occurred on the

same occasion, (2) were part of a single common scheme or plan, or (3) were

consolidated for trial or sentencing." Section 4A1.2, comment. (n.3).
Bell argues that, as a practical matter, his offenses were

consolidated for sentencing. It is well-settled in this circuit, however,

that "two or more sentences imposed at the same time `are not related for

purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) if the cases proceeded to sentencing

under separate docket numbers, and there was no formal order of

consolidation.'" United States v. Klein, 13 F.3d 1182, 1185 (8th Cir.)

(quoting United States v. McComber, 996 F.2d 946, 947 (8th Cir. 1993) (per

curiam)), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2722 (1994); accord United States v.

Lewchuck, 958 F.2d 246, 247 (8th Cir. 1992). To the extent Bell asks this

panel to reconsider the above line of cases, one panel of this court may

not overrule the opinion of another panel. See Campbell v. Purkett, 957

F.2d 535, 536 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

Bell also argues that the offenses were part of a common scheme or

plan. We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding

otherwise, as the offenses at issue occurred two weeks apart and involved

different victims. Cf. United States v. Lowe, 930 F.2d 645, 646-47 (8th

Cir. 1991) (standard of review; noting similar crimes are not necessarily

related crimes and upholding unrelatedness determination because offenses

occurred at different times, involved different victims, had been committed

in different locales, and had not been consolidated).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF James M. JOHNSON, Husband and Sydna Cheryl Johnson, Wife.

No. GG-473.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 22, 1977.

*141James M. Wallace, Bradenton, for appellant.

Joseph A. Sheffield of Roberts & Sheffield, Marianna, for appellee.

BOYER, Judge.

This is an appeal by the wife from that portion of an “Order Modifying Child Support and Visitation” reducing child support payments and retrospectively measuring delinquent child support payments by such reduced amount.

The husband petitioned for modification of child support on the grounds that: (1) He has since remarried, has changed jobs and is now making less than he was on the date of the final judgment, and (2) the wife herein is remarried. He also argues his lack of counsel at the time of dissolution.

The wife contends that the changed circumstances of the husband are voluntary in nature and cannot warrant a reduction in child support. The remarriage of the husband, with its attendant expenses, is neither relevant nor material to the issue of child support. *Pottinger v. Pottinger,*133 Fla. 442, 182 So. 762 (1938) and *Walden v. Walden,*114 So.2d 815 (Fla.2nd DCA 1959). In addition, the wife contends the record reveals that the husband’s job changes were voluntary and, indeed, his present job has increased his earnings from what they were at the time of the dissolution.

We agree and reverse.

Florida courts have uniformly held that a reduction in child support may be warranted upon changed circumstances which are substantive, material, involuntary and permanent in nature. (See *Bergh v. Bergh,*160 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); *Groves v. Groves,*260 So.2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972); and *Brown v. Brown,*315 So.2d 15 (Fla.3rd DCA 1975). The record sub judice reveals that while the husband does show certain changes in circumstances the changes were strictly voluntary in nature and cannot warrant a reduction in child support. As to the husband’s lack of counsel at the time of dissolution, we agree with our sister court, the Fourth District, where that court stated in *Hicks v. Hicks,*313 So.2d 64, 65 (Fla.4th DCA 1975):

> “ * * * Nor, in this context, is lack of advice of counsel such a ground; surely, a husband does not need a lawyer to advise him on the amount he should pay for child support.”

Since we reverse on the reduction in child support, the reduction of delinquent child support payments is necessarily reversed.

The motion of appellant-wife for an award of fees and costs on account of legal services on appeal is GRANTED. The case is remanded to the trial court for determination and assessment of the amount of reasonable fees for the services of appellant’s attorney on appeal. (See *Dresser v. Dresser,*350 So.2d 1152 (Fla.App.1st DCA 1977).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136087 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136087 

 COA: 275682 

Wayne CC: 06-009958-01

CALVIN PARKER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0616 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 23, 2008 

 Clerk
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 0828

_____________________________ A NTHONY J EAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Joshua M. Hawkes, Judge

. July 18, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OWE , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Anthony Jean, pro se, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda Afeazue Uwaibi, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

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 on
Form 10-K of Hudson Valley Holding Corp. (the
Company) for the year ending December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, James J. Landy,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
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 result of operations of the Company.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ JAMES J. LANDY                       
| |                                          
| | James J. Landy                           
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

Dated: March 11, 2005
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

# LRS conducts QLLEX 

By Airman 1st Class Shawna L. Keyes4th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

                SEYMOUR JOHNSON AIR FORCE BASE, N.C.  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Quartermaster Liquid Logistic ExerciseQLLEX4th Logistic Readiness SquadronSeymour Johnson Air Force Basefuel