alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40512 Conference Calendar

JAMES EUGENE GOEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SCOTTY KYLE, Deputy Warden; JOEL WATKINS, Hearing Officer; MARVIN BYNUM, Program Manager; BRADSHAW STATE JAIL; MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP. (MTC), Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:99-CV-680

- - - - - - - - - - December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Eugene Goen, a Texas prisoner (# 823930), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Goen has asserted that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights by filing a disciplinary report against him in retaliation for his filing of a grievance against a prison official. He has also alleged that the defendants had violatedNo. 00-40512 -2- his due process rights at the disciplinary hearing that followed, when they prevented him from calling inmate witnesses in his defense and his substitute counsel performed ineffectively. The district court concluded that Goen’s retaliation claim was conclusional and that his due process claims were frivolous under the rule of Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472 (1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Goen’s complaint as frivolous. See Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274-75 (5th Cir. 1998) ( Bivens -type civil rights claim by federal inmate). Goen’s allegations in support of his retaliation claim have been and remain too conclusional to state a claim that the defendants acted in a retaliatory manner against him. See Woods v. Smith , 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Insofar as Goen has asserted that his due process rights were violated at his disciplinary hearing, the punishments imposed for the purported disciplinary violation did not implicate a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest.
See Sandin , 515 U.S. at 274; Luken v. Scott , 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
#### Emil GASPERONI; William R. Rifenburgh, Sr.; and John M. Rifenburgh, his son, Appellants, v. The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF BOCA RATON, Florida; and the City of Boca Raton, Florida, Appellees.

No. 69-729.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 25, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# OPSEC Factoids

/ Published March 23, 2018
COLUMBUS, Ohio,       -     OPSEC protects our operations – planned, in progress, and/or those completed.    
      - Adversaries collect information in various ways – trash, pictures, internet, solicitation and espionage.    
      - Keep a “need to know” attitude (if they don’t need to know don’t tell them).    
      - Don’t leave your badge unattended or wear it off the installation.    
      - Your trash could be an adversary’s treasure (don’t toss it, shred it).    
      - Avoid posting excessive personal information online (i.e. employment information, family members full names, your address etc.).    
      - “A picture is worth a thousand words”, keep this in mind when posting them!    
      - Cell phones, cordless phones and land lines can all be compromised. Censor what you discuss on an unsecured line. You never know who’s listening!    
      - Be careful what you talk about in public. You don’t know if the person next to you is friendly or not.    
      - Be alert. A foreign agent may use a variety of approaches to get information.    
      - Whether on or off duty, don’t let your guard down.    
      - Know the critical information for your programs and activities.
### 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CURTIS J. BROWN

, §

§ No. 59

, 2017

Defendant Below

- §

Appellant, §

§ Court Below:

v. § Superior Court of the

§ State of Delaware

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§ Cr. I.D. No

. 1502004036 (N)

Plaintiff Below

- §

Appellee. §

Submitted: August 16 , 2017

Decided: August 1 7 , 2017

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN

, Justices.

O R D E R

This 1 7th day of August 2017, the Court, having considered this matter on the briefs

of the parties, has concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of and for the

reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its Memorandum Opinion of January 9, 2017

. 1

1 Appellant contends that he was entitled to an exculpatory presumption along the lines of Deberry

v. State , 457 A.2d 744 (Del. 1983), with respect to his performance on three field sobriety tests

(“FSTs ”) . He asserts that the FSTs were administered such th at a video recording device in the

officer’s patrol car failed to capture footage of his lower extremities. The Superior Court did not

address this argument, holding only that Brown was not entitled to a Deberry instruction arising

from a malfunction of t he officer’s microphone that caused the video to record without audio

. See

Brown v. State

, 2017 WL 89059 , at *3 n.17 (Del. Super. Jan. 9, 2017). T he Superior Court’s

reasoning in rejecting the audio claim applies equally to Appellant’s argument concernin g the

administration of the FSTs outside the full view of the camera. The State preserved and disclosed

the video evidence in its possession, and Brown has not demonstrated that law enforcement has an

affirmative duty to video record all FST administrations . Accordingly, Appellant’s argument

concerning the video of his performance on the FSTs is without merit

.

### 2

NOW, THEREFORE, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
256 La. 69

#### STATE ex rel. Joseph Jules SCHLUMBRECHT, Jr., Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of his Minor Daughter Gwendolyn Ann Schlumbrecht v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, Through its President, Dr. T. N. ARMISTEAD.

No. 50501.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: Louisiana State Board of Health applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 231 So.2d 730.

The application is denied. According to the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment complained of is correct.

HAMLIN, J., is of the view that the application should be granted.

SANDERS and SUMMERS, JJ., are of the opinion a writ should be granted.
EX-10.(d)











	
       Exhibit 10(d)

    







	POWER OF ATTORNEY



	
      The undersigned, a trustee of Mercury Master Trust (the
        “Trust”), a Delaware business trust, a director of Mercury Select
        Growth Fund of Mercury Funds, Inc. (the “Mercury Fund”), a Maryland
        corporation, hereby authorizes Terry K. Glenn and Donald C. Burke, or
        either of them, as attorney-in-fact, to sign on his behalf any amendments
        to the Registration Statement for the Trust and the Mercury Fund and to
        file the same, with all exhibits thereto, with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission. 

      Dated: January, 2002

    



	
      
       /s/ Robert C. Doll, Jr.
      


      (Robert. C. Doll, Jr.)
Skip Navigation

#         Archive-It      

Login

      - HOME
      - EXPLORE
      - LEARN MORE
      - CONTACT US

### The leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing cultural heritage on the web 

Built at the Internet Archive

        - Explore
        - Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive
        - U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

#  U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

**Collected by:** Federal Depository Library Program Web Archive 

**Archived since:**Jul, 2018

**Description:**
The Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is an independent agency in the executive branch of the Federal Government. The RRB’s primary function is to administer comprehensive retirement-survivor and unemployment-sickness benefit programs for the nation’s railroad workers and their families, under the Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts. As part of the retirement program, the RRB also has administrative responsibilities under the Social Security Act for certain benefit payments and railroad workers’ Medicare coverage.

**Subject:**    	    Government - US Federal,     	    Economics & Finance

**Creator:**    	    U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

**Language:**    	    English

**Collector:**    	    U.S. Government Publishing Office

## Narrow Your Results

### 

            There are no further ways to narrow your results.           

Sites for this collection are listed below. Narrow your results at left, or enter a search query below to		      find a site, specific URL or to search the text of archived webpages.
Clear

              - Sites
              - Search Page Text

Page 1 of 1  (4 Total Results)

**Sort By:**
                - Title (A-Z)
                - Title (Z-A)
                - URL (A-Z)
                - URL (Z-A)

### URL:     https://legallibrary.rrb.gov/Home.aspx

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://secure.rrb.gov/mep/ben_services.asp

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://secure.rrb.gov/mep/ee/ben_login_required.asp

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

### URL:     https://www.rrb.gov/

	  	Loading Wayback Capture Info...	  

Loading video data...

Page 1 of 1  (4 Total Results)

Archive It

#### Archive-It 

*Built at the Internet Archive*
2014 Archive-ItThe leading web archiving service for collecting and accessing  cultural heritage on the web 

      - Home
      - Learn More         - About Archive-It
        - News/Press
        - Meet the Team
        - Publications
      - Contact Us
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7972

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICKY SHERELLE JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior 

District Judge. (2:10-cr-00155-RGD-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00353-RGD)

Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 11, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricky Sherelle Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, 

Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricky Sherelle Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 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 is 

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 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 18

- 00155

- CR

Pedro Silva

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 371st District Court

o f Tarrant County (1486502R )

June 14, 2018

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment s . It is ordered that the judgment s

of the trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSHUA LOOKINGBILL, : Civil Action No. 4:13-CV-01636

 :

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

 :

v. :

 :

ANTHONY FETROW, : (Magistrate Judge Schwab) 

 :

 :

Defendant. :

ORDER

July 6, 2015

BACKGROUND: 

The undersigned has given full and independent consideration to the June 2, 

2015 report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab 

recommending that Joshua Lookingbill’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights case be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute or, in the alternative, grant Defendant’s motion 

to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 

38). No objections have been filed to the report and recommendation. 

Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Schwab’s thorough 

analysis of the pertinent issues, the Court will not rehash the sound reasoning of 

the Magistrate Judge and will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety.

Case 4:13-cv-01636-MWB Document 39 Filed 07/06/15 Page 1 of 2
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab’s June 2, 2015

Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. (ECF No. 38).

2. Petitioner Joshua Lookingbill’s 1983 civil rights case is DISMISSED

for failure to prosecute.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

 United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-01636-MWB Document 39 Filed 07/06/15 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in
his or her capacity as an officer of Ministry Partners Investment Company, LLC,
(the "Company") that, to his or her knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and
the results of operations of the Company for such period.




Date:
      March 29, 2010
            By: /s/ Billy M.
      DodsonBilly
      M. Dodson,PresidentDate:
      March 29, 2010
            By:/s/ Susan B. ReillySusan
      B. Reilly,Principal
      Accounting Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 

VIAE-Mail 

April 5, 2016 

David Ouimette, Ph.D. 

U.S. Regulatory Leader 

Dow AgroSciences LLC 

9330 Zionsville Rd 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46268-1054 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

Subject: Fluroxypyr Generic Data Call-In (GDCI-128968-1498): Study Titling Error 

Dear Mr. Ouimette: 

On March 1, 2016, the EPA issued a data call-in (DCI) for fluroxypyr under registration review 

(GDCI-128968-1498) that included the following study: 

Guideline Number 

835.6100 ation 

The DCI erroneously indicated that the full Terrestrial Field Dissipation study is requested. 

However, only a portion of this study is needed, which the footnote (8) has specified. The 

portion ofthe study needed is "Environmental Chemistry Analytical Method and Associated 

Independent Laboratory Validation for Soil and Water." The correct guideline number for this 

portion of the study is 850.6100. The requirements for this guideline are located in the 40 CFR 

Part 48. These methods and validations are needed for both fluroxypyr-MHE and fluroxypyr 

acid. 

The Fluroxypyr DCI requires the submission ofGLN 850.6100 data within 24 months of Dow's 

receipt of the DCI. If you have any questions regarding these data requirements, please do not 

hesitate to contact Caitlin Newcamp of my staff at newcamp.caitlin@epa.gov or (703) 347-0325. 

lrP 

Neil Anderson 

Chief, Risk Management Implementation Branch I 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division 

Office of Pesticide Programs
```

[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Notices]               
[Page 64986]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-30]                         

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

Date and Time: Friday, October 29, 2010; 8:30 a.m. EDT.

Place: 624 Ninth Street, NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.

I. Approval of Agenda.
II. Program Planning.
     Approval of New Black Panther Party Enforcement Report.
     Consideration of Findings and Recommendations for Briefing 
Report on English-Only in the Workplace.
     Consideration of Policy on Commissioner Statements and 
Rebuttals.
     Update on Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College 
Admissions--Some of the discussion of this agenda item may be held in 
closed session.
     Update on Clearinghouse Project.
III. State Advisory Committee Issues.
     Kentucky SAC.
     Maryland SAC.
     Vermont SAC.
IV. Staff Director's Report.
V. Announcements.
VI. Approval of Minutes of October 8 Meeting.
VII. Adjourn.

Contact Person for Further Information: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591. TDD: (202) 376-8116.
    Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at 
least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-
8116.

    Dated: October 19, 2010.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-26752 Filed 10-19-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
- 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 Outlook in the Merchant Marine

              																	Spector, Eugene Paul					,	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics					 and 	United States. Veterans Administration. 						*Employment Outlook in the Merchant Marine : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1054*,												Washington: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1952,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4431,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
##### 



Exhibit 12 DAVE & BUSTERS, INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS
TO FIXED CHARGES
(Dollars in thousands) Year
    
    
    Year
    
    
    YearEnded
    
    
    Ended
    
    
    EndedJanuary 30, 2005
    
    
    February 1, 2004
    
    
    February 2, 2003Income before provision for income
taxes and cumulative effect of a
change in an accounting principle
    
    $
    19,805
    
    
    $
    16,540
    
    
    $
    7,680Fixed charges:Interest expense *
    
    
    6,153
    
    
    
    7,443
    
    
    
    7,830Capitalized interest
    
    
    668
    
    
    
    170
    
    
    
    361Estimate of interest included in
rental expense **
    
    
    8,016
    
    
    
    7,108
    
    
    
    6,980Total fixed charges
    
    $
    14,837
    
    
    $
    14,721
    
    
    $
    15,171Income before provision for income
taxes and cumulative effect of a
change in an accounting principle and fixed charges,
less capitalized interest
    
    $
    33,974
    
    
    $
    31,091
    
    
    $
    22,490Ratio of earnings to fixed charges:
    
    
    2.29
    
    
    
    2.11
    
    
    
    1.48
   *
    
    Interest expense includes interest in association with debt and amortization of debt issuance
costs.**
    
    Fixed charges include our estimate of interest included in rental payments made under operating
leases.
#### Robert L. JEFFERIES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-70.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 21, 1970.

Robert P. Miller, Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a judgment of guilt and sentence entered pursuant to his plea of guilty to the charge of attempted breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. The sentence imposed is two years, less time served awaiting trial.

Two errors are assigned; viz, sentence is excessive and the guilty plea is invalid as being the result of promises extended to him. We find both of these assignments to be totally without merit. The sentence is less than the maximum provided by law. The remaining assignment which contends that the guilty plea is invalid is equally unavailing. See this court’s opinion in Ward v. State, 236 So.2d 187, filed June 11, 1970. A review of the transcript of the proceedings at the time the guilty plea was tendered makes it abundantly clear that appellant’s plea was knowingly, advisedly and freely made.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ„ concur.