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

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LYLE Q. BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY McCOLLUM,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-6234

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-01137-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Oklahoma prisoner Lyle Brown brought a habeas petition in federal district

court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. But because it challenged his conviction’s validity

and not his sentence’s execution, the district court held that it properly arose

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir.

2000). Observing that Mr. Brown has previously and unsuccessfully challenged

the same conviction in an earlier federal habeas petition, see Brown v. McCollum,

515 F. App’x 759 (10th Cir. 2013), the district court concluded that the current

petition was a successive one that Mr. Brown could not pursue without first

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
seeking and obtaining this court’s permission. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Because Mr. Brown hadn’t sought or secured that much, the district court

dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction and concluded that the interests of

justice did not warrant its transfer to this court. See, e.g., In re Cline, 531 F.3d

1249, 1251-52 (10th Cir. 2008); Pease v. Klinger, 115 F.3d 763, 764 (10th Cir.

1997). It is this decision Mr. Brown now asks us to revisit.

But before Mr. Brown may appeal any adverse decision under § 2241 or

§ 2254 arising from a state court conviction Congress requires him to obtain a

certificate of appealability. See Montez, 208 F.3d at 867. To win a COA, a

petitioner must show that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000). And this much Mr. Brown has not done: he does not address

the district court’s procedural decision and for our own part we see no error in it. 

Moreover, even were we to exercise our discretion to reformulate this appeal as a

request for leave to file a successive § 2254 application, something we may but

need not do, see Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213, 1219 n.8 (10th Cir. 2006), we

do not see how it might satisfy the standards 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) imposes on

such requests.

- 2 -
The COA request is denied, as are the motions for appointed counsel and

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the appeal is dismissed.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 3 -
# C_2016203EN.01002801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/28

---

Article 66

Should the Commission find, on application by the users concerned, that the Agency is not in a position to deliver within a reasonable period of time all or part of the supplies ordered, or that it can only do so at excessively high prices, the users shall have the right to conclude directly contracts relating to supplies from outside the Community, provided that such contracts meet in essential respects the requirements specified in their orders.

This right shall be granted for a period of one year; it may be extended if the situation which justified its granting continues.

Users who avail themselves of the right provided for in this Article shall communicate to the Commission the direct contracts which they propose to conclude. The Commission may, within one month, object to the conclusion of such contracts if they are contrary to the objectives of this Treaty.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.33

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     Whereas UroMed Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation with its principal
place of business at 1400 Providence Highway, Building #2, Norwood,
Massachusetts 02062 ("the Company") and Daniel Muscatello an individual residing
at [ ] ("Employee") are parties to an Employment agreement dated on February 4,
1997 and amended on December 1, 1999.

Both parties agree to amend paragraph 2(a) to read:

"Employee's" annual compensation shall be $250,000 ("the Base Salary"). Employee
shall be paid on the 15/th/ day and the last day of each calendar month for the
current month's employment. Pay shall be adjusted pro rata for any partial week
of employment and standard employer deductions shall be made from each payment.
Employee's gross semi-monthly compensation shall be subjected to an annual
review and adjustment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have affixed their hands and seals upon
two (2) counterpart originals hereof as of March 12, 2001.

EMPLOYEE                                              UROMED CORPORATION

/s/ Daniel Muscatello                              By /s/ Richard Sandberg
---------------------                                 ----------------------
                                                      its Chairman of the
                                                      Compensation Committee,
                                                      hereunto duly Authorized,
                                                      acting in such capacity,
                                                      and not individually
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINLAY
ENTERPRISES,  INC.  FORM 10-Q AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                         11,334
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,294
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    312,832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               370,909
<PP&E>                                         92,719
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 556,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          287,410
<BONDS>                                        218,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       98
<OTHER-SE>                                     50,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   556,561
<SALES>                                        431,422
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               431,422
<CGS>                                          209,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  209,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               210,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             25,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,763)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,909)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,854)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.16)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Public Accountants

The Board of Directors CSW UK Finance Company:

      We  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration
statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-70746, 33-12992, 33-49301, 33-63027 and 33-64233)
and on Form S-3  (Nos.  33-50193  and  333-00911)  of  Central  and  South  West
Corporation  of  our  report  dated  19  January  1999,   with  respect  to  the
consolidated balance sheet of CSW UK Finance Company as of 31 December 1998, and
the related consolidated  statements of earnings and cashflows for the year then
ended,  which report appears in the 31 December 1998, annual report on Form 10-K
of Central and South West Corporation.

KPMG Audit Plc                                               London, England
Chartered Accountants                                        10 March 1999
Registered Auditors




                                      4-21
# EUR-Lex - 22003D0160 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22003D0160

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 160/2003 of 7 November 2003 amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 041 , 12/02/2004 P. 0058 - 0059 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 160/2003

of 7 November 2003

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 130/2003 of 26 September 2003(1).

(2) Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following is added after point 32f (Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XX to the Agreement:

"VI. NOISE

32g. 32002 L 0049: Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12)."

Article 2

The text of Directive 2002/49/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 8 November 2003, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 7 November 2003.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von Liechtenstein

(1) OJ L 331, 18.12.2003, p. 64.

(2) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

(3) Constitutional requirements indicated.
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply543Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  David Linn (no... (not verified)PermalinkOctober 16, 2017 - 11:33amA former tour guide told me she was alone in the Old Senate Chamber in the early 1980s and one of the books on the desks opened._x000D_ _x000D_ Thank you for the interesting article!_x000D_ _x000D_
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 95-50673

Summary Calendar

_____________

REBECCA BUSH

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY 

OF RHODE ISLAND,

CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

KIRK LINDEMANN, and

SUSAN KING Defendants-Appellants

____________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CV-321)

_____________________________

July 15, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Because the district court’s decision appearsto be in conflict with this court’srecent decision

in Patin v. Allied Signal, Inc., 77 F.3d 782 (5th Cir.1996) and because the Patin opinion was

unavailable to the district court when it considered this case, the district court’s judgment is vacated

and the case isremanded to that court for its reconsideration in the light of our recent Patin decision

and, if necessary, for its consideration of the additional issues pretermitted by its original decision.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-20169) pertaining to the Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. 1993 Stock Option
Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-29940) pertaining to the
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan, and the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-130832) of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. pertaining to the Cal-Maine
Foods, Inc. Incentive Stock Option Plan and to the Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Stock
Appreciation Rights Plan of our reports dated August 2, 2010, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and
Subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
of Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended May 29, 2010.





/s/
      FRAZER FROST, LLPCertified
      Public Accountants





Little
Rock, Arkansas


August 2,
2010
# EUR-Lex - 22003D0099 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 22003D0099

**2003/99/EC: Decision No 1/2002 of the European Union-Mexico Joint Committee of 20 December 2002 relating to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000 of the European Union-Mexico Joint Council of 23 March 2000, concerning the definition of the concept of "originating products" and methods of administrative cooperation **

*
Official Journal L 044 , 18/02/2003 P. 0097 - 0097 *

Decision No 1/2002 of the European Union-Mexico Joint Committee

of 20 December 2002

relating to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000 of the European Union-Mexico Joint Council of 23 March 2000, concerning the definition of the concept of "originating products" and methods of administrative cooperation

(2003/99/EC)

THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to Decision No 2/2000 of the EU-Mexico Joint Council of 23 March 2000 (hereinafter "Decision No 2/2000"), and in particular note 4 of Appendix II(a) to Annex III and Joint Declaration VI thereto,

Whereas:

(1) Annex III to Decision No 2/2000 sets out the rules of origin for the products originating in the territory of the Parties to the Agreement.

(2) Note 4 of Appendix II(a) to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000, as well as Joint Declaration VI relating to that note have been adapted by the Joint Council Decision No 5/2002, with the purpose of ensuring their consistency with the Parties tariff laws and regulations.

(3) According to Joint Declaration VI, the Joint Committee shall extend beyond 31 December 2002 the rule of origin established in note 4 of Appendix II(a) to Annex III, as adapted by the Joint Council Decision No 5/2002, until the current round of multilateral negotiations within the World Trade Organisation ("WTO") has finished.

(4) It is envisaged that the WTO negotiations shall be concluded by 31 December 2004. Should those negotiations be finished by that date, the Joint Committee should at that time, and in accordance with Joint Declaration VI, determine the rule of origin to be applied for the products concerned,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The origin rules set out in note 4 of Appendix II(a) to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000, as adapted by the Joint Council Decision No 5/2002, shall be applied until 31 December 2004 instead of the origin rules set out in Appendix II to Annex III to Decision No 2/2000.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2003.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2002.

For the Joint Committee

The President

Francisco Da Câmara Gomes
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  FOUND ON PAGES 4 AND 5 OF THE COMPANY'S
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 26, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-26-1998
<CASH>                                         404,756
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                    24,900
<INVENTORY>                                  2,028,803
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,612,926
<PP&E>                                       4,115,588
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,296,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,592,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,024,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,550
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,378,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,592,846
<SALES>                                      2,914,289
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,914,289
<CGS>                                          936,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,307,254
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (8,201)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (331,578)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (331,578)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (331,578)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 99 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 99

   To prohibit anticompetitive activities and to provide that health 
insurance issuers and medical malpractice insurance issuers are subject 
  to the antitrust laws of the United States, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

 Mr. Conyers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit anticompetitive activities and to provide that health 
insurance issuers and medical malpractice insurance issuers are subject 
  to the antitrust laws of the United States, 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 ``Health Insurance Industry Antitrust 
Enforcement Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF ANTICOMPETITIVE ACTIVITIES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing in the Act of 
March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq., commonly known as the 
``McCarran-Ferguson Act''), shall be construed to permit health 
insurance issuers (as defined in section 2791 of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-91)) or issuers of medical malpractice 
insurance to engage in any form of price fixing, bid rigging, or market 
allocations in connection with the conduct of the business of providing 
health insurance coverage (as defined in such section) or coverage for 
medical malpractice claims or actions.

SEC. 3. RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR 
              INSURERS.

    (a) Amendment to McCarran-Ferguson Act.--Section 3 of the Act of 
March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1013), commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall modify, impair, or 
supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to 
the business of health insurance. For purposes of the preceding 
sentence, the term `antitrust laws' has the meaning given it in 
subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, except that 
such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the 
extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition.''.
    (b) Related Provision.--For purposes of section 5 of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section applies 
to unfair methods of competition, section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act shall apply with respect to the business of health insurance 
without regard to whether such business is carried on for profit, 
notwithstanding the definition of ``Corporation'' contained in section 
4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
                                 <all>
```