alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*

 After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 23, 2010*

Decided December 1, 2010

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

 TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

 DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 09-2070

SHONE FOSTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TAMMY POWELL, 

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 07-3155

Harold A. Baker, 

Judge

O R D E R

In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Shone Foster claims that Tammy Powell, a shift

commander at the Sangamon County Detention Facility, violated the First and Fourteenth

Amendments by threatening him while he was in pretrial detention. Foster had asked why

the jail was on lockdown, and Powell scoffed, “Top Secret, if I told you, I’d have to kill

you.” Foster says this expression was not jest and that he feared for his life. And he grew

more anxious, he continues, after filing a grievance and being confronted by Powell, who

accused him of trying to ruin her career and warned that she could make his stay “very

uncomfortable” if he did not “back off.” Foster did not relent but instead named Powell in

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09-2070 Page 2

a second grievance. After that he had no further contact with her and suffered no adverse

action at the jail. 

At screening, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court allowed Foster’s retaliation

theory to proceed, but later the court dismissed the suit because Foster had not updated his

mailing address upon being released from jail. At Foster’s urging, however, the court

reconsidered that ruling and reinstated the suit. The court then granted summary judgment

for Powell on the ground that her isolated comments, uncoupled from any adverse action,

could not have deterred a reasonable person from exercising his First Amendment rights. 

On appeal Foster primarily challenges the rescinded procedural dismissal, but we

construe his pro se filings to contest also the grant of summary judgment for Powell. See

Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Even so, the district court properly

decided that, as a matter of law, Powell’s remarks could not have deterred a reasonable

person from exercising his First Amendment rights. See Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541, 552

(7th Cir. 2009); Bart v. Telford, 677 F.2d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 1982); Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d

378, 398 (6th Cir. 1999). Indeed Foster’s own conduct makes this point evident, since his

immediate reaction to both conversations with Powell was to file a grievance. And there is

no evidence that he suffered an adverse action while confined, i.e., discipline, altered

conditions of confinement, loss of privileges, reassignment, or otherwise. 

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Office of Justice Programs

          - [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1589]

# AGENCY:

National Institute of Justice, DOJ.

# ACTION:

Notice and request for comments.

# SUMMARY:

                        In an effort to obtain comments from interested parties, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Scientific Working Group for Medicolegal Death Investigation will make available to the general public a document entitled, “Organ and Tissue Procurement Committee Standards and Best Practices for Interaction Between Medical Examiner/Coroner Offices and Organ Tissue Procurement Organizations”. The opportunity to provide comments on this document is open to coroner/medical examiner office representatives, law enforcement agencies, organizations, and all other stakeholders and interested parties. Those individuals wishing to obtain and provide comments on the draft document under consideration are directed to the following Web site:                         *http://www.swgmdi.org.*

# DATES:

Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Patricia Kashtan, by telephone at 202-353-1856 [                        **Note:**                         this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by email at                         *Patricia.Kashtan@usdoj.gov.*

John H. Laub,

Director, National Institute of Justice.

[FR Doc. 2012-9842 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of -- ) 

) 

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. ) 

) 

Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 ) 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 57780 

John E. Jensen, Esq. 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 

McLean, VA 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Carol L. Matsunaga, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 17 April 2015 

Administrative Judge 

Acting Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 57780, Appeal of General Atomics 

Aeronautical Systems, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex S. Curtis, Appellant.

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Mogavero Jr., J.), rendered May 7, 1990, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.

We reject defendant’s contention that the victim’s testimony was " 'manifestly untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or self-contradictory’ ” *(People v Shedrick,*104 AD2d 263, 274, *affd*66 NY2d 1015, quoting *People v Stroman,*
      *90083 AD2d 370, 373) as to render it incredible as a matter of law. The fact that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent in some respects does not render it impossible of belief so that it should not have been presented to the jury. Rather, the testimony was "well within the jury’s domain for determining credibility” *(People v Sweet,*132 AD2d 795, 796). Defendant’s assertion of inadequate legal representation also lacks merit. Viewing trial counsel’s performance in its entirety together with the circumstances of the case, we cannot say that defense counsel failed to meet the standards enunciated in *People v Baldi*(54 NY2d 137). Finally, given defendant’s lengthy criminal history and the violent nature of the crimes involved herein, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in imposing concurrent prison sentences of 12 *1⁄2*to 25 years for his convictions of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree and *31⁄2*to 7 years for his. conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree *(see, People v Gholston,*137 AD2d 765, *lv denied*71 NY2d 896; *People v Collins,*136 AD2d 720, 722, *lv denied*71 NY2d 894).

Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns Conducting Operational 
Research to Measure or Mitigate Morbidity and Mortality of Populations 
Affected by Humanitarian Emergencies, Funding Opportunity Announcement 
(FOA) GH12-007, initial review.
    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

DATES: Time and Date: 1 p.m.-4 p.m., June 20, 2012 (Closed).

PLACE: Teleconference.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and 
the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services 
Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED: The meeting will include the initial review, 
discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to 
``Conducting Operational Research to Measure or Mitigate Morbidity and 
Mortality of Populations Affected by Humanitarian Emergencies, FOA 
GH12-007.''

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Diana Bartlett, Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of 
Science Quality, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-72, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30033, Telephone (404) 639-4938.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: April 25, 2012.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2012-9924 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 23, 2013.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

*1. Baylake Corporation,*                     Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Admiral Asset Management, LLC, Green Bay, Wisconsin and thereby indirectly engage in providing financial advice and agency transactional services for customers, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(6) and (b)(7) all of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3, 2013.

Margaret McCloskey Shanks,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2013-00107 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference, in the registration statements of
Bowmar Instrument Corporation and Subsidiaries on Forms S-8 (File nos. 33-57230,
33-62247 and 33-9776) of our report dated November 8, 1996, except as to the
information presented in Note 15 for which the date is December 6, 1996, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Bowmar Instrument Corporation
and Subsidiaries, as of September 28, 1996, and September 30, 1995, and for each
of the three years in the period ended September 28, 1996, which report is
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Phoenix, Arizona
December 18, 1996
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20243

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS ANGEL FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-356-2

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Angel Flores has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Flores has

responded to counsel’s motion.

Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Flores’s

response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
NO. 06-14-00096-CV 

MICHAEL ANDERSON § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

vs. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

THOMAS SNODDY TEXARKANA, TEXAS 

APPELLANT'S FIRST MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

COMES NOW MICHAEL ANDERSON, Appellant, and moves the Court to extend the time 

for filing the Appellant's Brief in accordance with Rule 10.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. In supp011 of his motion, Appellant would show the following: 

A. Appellant's brief is due by April 23, 2015 

B. Appellant seeks a thirty-day extension. 

C. The undersigned counsel has a ttial set on April 20, 2015, in Lawanda Daugherty v. Many 

and Jerry Riley, Cause No. 14-1406-C, in the 24 !51 District Court of Smith County, Texas. 

D. No extensions have previously been granted regarding the Appellant's brief. 

This motion is made not for purposes of delay but so that justice may be done. 

Respectfully submitted, 

SNOW E. BUSH, JR., P.C. 

420 N. Center Street 

Longview, TX 75601 

PHONE: (903) 753-7006 

FAX: (903) 753-7278 

sbcglobal.net 

THAN WHARTON 

E BAR NO. 24075764 

ORNEY FOR APPELLANT, 

MICHAEL ANDERSON 

ACCEPTED

06-14-00096-cv

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

4/15/2015 3:02:14 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/15/2015 3:02:14 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a hue and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been ~ivered 

to all f OUnr' ofrecord in compliance with the requirements of T .R. C.P. 21 a on this the /s day 

of f\f( I , 2015
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0679 Directorate ID: 2013-SW-015-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS350B, BA, B1, B2, B3, C, D, and D1

Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 651 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent the collective from becoming 

inadvertently locked in the low position and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $95

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour to measure the 

clearance and repair the 

locking stud and strip x 

$85/work-hour.)

$85

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $180

Total US Fleet Cost $117,180

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Robert Grant
COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

 CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON PULLIAM

 JUSTICES

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335-2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335-2762

April 20, 2015

Michael Everett Heygood

Heygood Orr & Pearson

2331 W Northwest Hwy # 200

Dallas, TX 75220-4415

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Lorien Whyte

Brin & Brin, PC

6223 IH 10 West

San Antonio, TX 78201

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Ira S. Lipsius

8002 Kew Gardens Road suite 1030

Kew Gardens, NY 11415

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Dan Pozza

Law Offices of Dan Pozza

239 East Commerce Street

San Antonio, TX 78205

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

John C. Dulske

Law Offices of Dulske & Gluys, P.C.

10500 Heritage Blvd., Ste. 107

San Antonio, TX 78216

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Joseph Raymond Russo Jr.

Greer, Herz & Adams LLP

One Moody Plaza, 19th floor

Galveston, TX 77550-7947

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Keith A. Kendall

Davidson, Troilo, Ream & Garza

7550 W IH-10, Suite 800

San Antonio, TX 78229

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-13-00719-CV

Trial Court Case Number: 2011-CI-17464

Style: American National Insurance Company

v.

The Conestoga Settlement Trust, The RE Family Trust and Shea Ungar A/K/A

Hershey Ungar Trustee of the RE Family Trust

The Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Enter Mandate or, in the Alternative, Motion to

Clarify the Prior Stay Order was Lifter when this Court Disposed of the Appeal has this date

been received and filed in the above styled and numbered cause.

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

_____________________________

Luz Estrada

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53219

FILE COPY
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Don Stewart, Respondent.

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), dated January 25, 1990, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence, and thereupon dismissed the indictment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The defendant fled when two police officers in plainclothes approached him for an investigatory inquiry. During the pursuit, the defendant dropped a gun to the ground and continued running. He was captured after a brief chase, and the gun was recovered.

We concur with the suppression court’s determination that the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the police were not justified in pursuing the defendant. The facts which prompted the initial police inquiry, even when coupled with the defendant’s flight, were insufficient to establish that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed or was about to commit a crime *(see, People v Leung,*68 NY2d 734; *People v Howard,*50 NY2d 583, *cert denied*449 US 1023). Nevertheless, we find that the court erred in ruling that the gun was inadmissible at trial. The defendant’s decision to discard the gun during the pursuit was not a spontaneous reaction to the police action, but was an independent act involving a calculated risk *(see, People v Boodle,*47 NY2d 398, *cert denied*444 US 969; *People v Martin,*140 AD2d 632; *People v Williams,*137 AD2d 568).

We note that we have decided this case based on New York State decisional law and have not relied on *California v Hodari D.*(499 US — [Apr. 23,1991]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### Gilda Scandinaro et al., Appellants, v Natalie G. Hauerstein et al., Respondents.

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered December 4, 1989, as denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Ruskin at the Supreme Court. Kooper, J. P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.