alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________
No. 07-4015
T YRONE O. Y OUNG , Petitioner-Appellant , v.

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Respondent-Appellee

.

____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 06–C–1328— Rudolph T. Randa , Chief Judge

.

____________ S UBMITTED A PRIL 2, 2008—D ECIDED A PRIL 15, 2008

____________ Before E ASTERBROOK , Chief Judge , and P OSNERand R OVNER , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM . The petitioner has appealed from the denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate hissentence. The district court issued a certificate of appealability “regarding the timeliness of his motion.” The court offered no other ex planation for its action. In acting as it did, the co urt appears to have overlooked our opinion in Davis v. Borgen , 349 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2003), another case from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. There we stated: (1) A certificate of appealability may be issued only if the prisoner has at least one substantial constitutional2 No. 07-4015 question for appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). (2) The certificate must identify ea ch substantial constitutional question. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); Beyer v. Litscher, 306 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2002). (3) If there is a substantial constitutional issue, and an antecedent non-constitutional issue independently is substantial, then the certificate may include that issue as well. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Owens v. Boyd, 235F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2000). (4) Any substantial non-constitutional issue must be identified specifically in the certificate. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). (5) If success on a non-constitutional issue is essential (compliance with the statute of limitations is a good example), and there is no substantial argumentthat the district judge erred in resolving the non-constitutional question, then no certificate of appealability should issue even if the constitutional question standing alone would have justified an appeal. See Anderson v. Litscher, 281 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2002).
Id . at 1029. We then pointed out that the certificate issued by the district court did not satisfy these requirements. It is the same here. The prisoner has no constitutional question for appeal, substantial or otherwise; the only question he presents is whethe r the district court abused its discretion in finding that his section 2255 motion was untimely. The certificate of appealability does not identify a substantial, or any, constitutional question. That moots the other three requirements. The certificate of appealability is vacated and the appeal dismissed.

USCA-02-C-0072—4-15-08
# Franklin - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments Executive Director Keith Jones Email &#x6b;&#x6a;&#x6f;&#110;&#101;s&#64;&#x6e;&#x61;&#x63;&#111;&#108;g&#46;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the 
specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the 
accompanying bill or joint resolution.
```
EXHIBIT  99.4

CERTIFICATION  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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PW Preferred Yield Fund
II,  L.P.  (the  "Partnership") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), and
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002, I, Michael J. Butterfield, Chief Financial Officer of AFG Leasing
VII  Incorporated,  the  sole  General  Partner  of  Pembroke  Financial Limited
Partnership,  general  partner  of  the  Partnership,  hereby  certify  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 results of operations of the
       Partnership.


       By:     Pembroke  Financial  Limited  Partnership
               Managing  General  Partner

       By:     AFG  Leasing  VII  Incorporated

       By:     /s/  Michael  J.  Butterfield
               Michael  J.  Butterfield
               Chief  Financial  Officer  of  AFG  Leasing  VII
               Incorporated,  the  sole  General  Partner  of
          Pembroke  Financial  Limited  Partnership

Date:  August  14,  2002
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 3927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1167]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts; Proposed Collection: Comment 
Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a 
preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and 
Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or 
continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program 
helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, 
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. 
Currently, the National Endowment for the Arts, on behalf of the 
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, is soliciting comments 
concerning renewal of the Application for Domestic Indemnity. A copy of 
this collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed 
below in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
ADDRESSES section below on or before April 1, 2011. The National 
Endowment for the Arts is particularly interested in comments which:

--Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary 
for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
--Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
--Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and
--Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are 
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology, e.g., permitting the electronic submissions 
of responses.

ADDRESSES: Alice Whelihan, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 726, Washington, DC 20506-0001, 
telephone (202) 682-5574 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 
682-5603.

Kathleen Edwards,
Director, Administrative Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-1167 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
```
Amend. to Employment Agmt. between Ken Johnson and the Registrant



 EXHIBIT 10.31 
  
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment to
Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), dated as of October 26, 2004 (“Effective Date”), is entered into by and among PLACER SIERRA BANK, a California banking corporation (“Bank”) and PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES
(“PLSB”) (hereafter jointly as (“Employer”), and KEN JOHNSON (“Employee”). 
  
 A. Bank and Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement, dated May 17, 2004 (“Agreement”). 
  
 B. Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of PLSB and Employer seek to confirm the
employment status of Employee. 
  
 C. Employer and Employee desire
to amend the Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. 
  
 Now,
therefore, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 AMENDMENT 
  
 1. Additional Duties.
Employee currently serves as the Executive Vice President and Director of Human Resources of Bank. Employer and Employee hereby agree that Employee will also now assume the duties and title of Executive Vice President and Director of Human Resources
of PLSB. This amendment will not alter Employee’s compensation or benefits which will continue to be received pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. 
  
 2. Affirmation. In order to induce each other to enter into this Amendment, the parties hereby confirm that all terms and provisions of the
Agreement have been and continue to be in all respects in full force and effect, and no violation of the terms and conditions of the Agreement has occurred. 
  
 3. Amendment. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, this Amendment shall not alter, amend, or otherwise modify the terms and provisions
of the Agreement. From and after the Effective Date, all references in the Agreement to “the Agreement,” “this Agreement” or any similar reference shall refer to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. Capitalized words or
terms used in this Amendment are defined words or terms, the definitions of which are set forth in the Agreement unless otherwise defined in this Amendment. 
  
  

 -1- 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date. 
  

			
	PLACER SIERRA BANK	 	 
		
	 By: /s/ Randall Reynoso

	 	 
	 President and Chief Operating Officer
	 	 /s/ Ken E. Johnson


	 	 	KEN E. JOHNSON
	PLACER SIERRA BANCSHARES	 	 
		
	 By: /s/ Randall Reynoso

	 	 
	 President and Chief Operating Officer
	 	 

  

 -2-
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e : DE NN I S J . C OO K, D ebt or, W E N E T A M . A . K O S M A L A , C hapt e r11 T rust ee , C hapt er7 T rust ee of the E st at e of D e nni s J a m e s C ook, A p p e lla n t, v. DE NN I S J AME S C OO K; DO NA L D D . C O O K , J r . , S uc c e s s orT rus t e e of the D ona l d D . C ook a nd N a nc y A C ook R e v o c a b le T ru s t, A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 60053 B A P N o. C C - 08- 01091- H M oD ME MOR AN DU M *

A p p e a l f r o m th e N in th C ir c u it B ankrup t cy A pp el l at e P anel H ol l ow e l l , M ont a l i , a nd D unn, B a nkrupt c y J udge s , P r e s i di ng 

# FI LED MA R 09 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t a bl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 4, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: C A N B Y , G O U L D an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B ec ause prop erty devi se d t o an i nt ervi vo s trustfr om a w i l l “ i s notdeem ed t o b e h el d u n d er a t est am en t ary tru sto f th e t est at o r b u tb eco m es a p arto f th e tru st t o w hi ch i ti s gi ven, ” C al . P rob. C od e § 63 00 , the re al prop erty a ti ss ue here beca m e apartof the i nt ervi vo s trustt o w hi ch i tw as devi se d. W e have hel d that

“ ‘ i nc om e di s tr i but i ons de r i ve d f r om a n i nt e r vi vos trus tdo notf i tw i thi n’ the defi ni t i on of § 5 41 (a )( 5)(A ) a nd there fore es cape ‘ the pal e of the 18 0 d ay dragnet . ’ ” N

e uton v . D anni ng (I

n r e N e uton ), 92 2 F . 2d 13 79 , 13 84 n. 6 (9t h C i r. 1990) ( quot i ng N

e w m a n v . M

a g ill , 9 9 B .R . 8 8 1 , 8 8 4

– 8 5 ( C .D . I ll. 1 9 8 9 ) ) . T he r e f or e , the D e bt or ’ s i nt e r e s ti n the i nt e rvi vos trus ta s s e t s i s notpr ope r ty of the bank rupt cy es t at e. AF F I RME D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                 537,195
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>               1,751,397
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                             0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>         35,140,115
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>              10,319,706
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                10,589,408
<LOANS>                             35,265,278
<ALLOWANCE>                            415,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      85,888,081
<DEPOSITS>                          48,533,057
<SHORT-TERM>                        21,217,625
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                 24,209,460
<LONG-TERM>                          2,242,867
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                74,750
<OTHER-SE>                          13,070,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>      85,888,081
<INTEREST-LOAN>                      2,632,609
<INTEREST-INVEST>                    2,828,740
<INTEREST-OTHER>                        32,553
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                     5,493,902
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                   2,082,646
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     943,600
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                2,467,656
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                     (5,596)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                      1,810,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        816,222
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>             540,149
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           540,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.88
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                            3.21
<LOANS-NON>                             34,751
<LOANS-PAST>                                 0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                        166,087
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                       423,079
<CHARGE-OFFS>                            7,633
<RECOVERIES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                      415,447
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                415,447


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

11/8/13

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Test Procedure Meeting with the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the 

Global Automakers

FROM: Christopher Laroo

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

This memo documents a meeting held on 11/18/13 between representatives of the Alliance of 

Automobile Manufacturers, Global Automakers, ARB, and EPA to discuss light-duty vehicle 

plug-in hybrid electric vehicle test procedures. The meeting attendees are enclosed.
May 10, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with Chem-Mod

Attendees :

EPA: William H. Maxwell, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/ESG Nick Hutson, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/ESG Barrett Parker, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MPG Mary Johnson, EPA/OAQ PS/SPPD/ESG (by phone) Christian Fellner, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/ESG (by phone) Erich Eschmann, EPA/OAP/CAMD (by phone)

Chem-Mod: Sally Wasikowski, Chem-Mod Liz Williamson, Winston & Strawn Ralph Roberson, RMB Consulting Mark Frentrup, Harness, Dickey, & Pierce Jay Holloway, Winston & Strawn

Discussion :

Chem-Mod provided information on their process for mercury removal from the exhaust gas stream of coal-fired EGUs. They indicated that comments would be provided on the proposed rule with suggested changes to th e text of the regulation so as not to preclude their type of process from being used for complia nce with the proposed Toxics Rule.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following 
communication from the Speaker:

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   August 1, 2012.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Daniel Webster to act as 
     Speaker pro tempore on this day.
                                                  John A. Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2013156EN.01003202.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — SAZAS v Commission

(Case T-420/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)

2013/C 156/56

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS) (Trzin, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Združenje skladateljev, avtorjev in založnikov za zaščito avtorskih pravic Slovenije (SAZAS);

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Brad
      E. Herr, Chief Financial Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the "Company") do
      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:





This
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
      September 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:November
              9, 2007/s/Brad
              E.
              HerrBrad
                E. Herr
              Chief
                Financial Officer
#### East 35th Street Real Estate Associates, Appellant, v 24535 Owners Corp., Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.), entered on or about June 8, 1990, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying defendant’s motion and reinstating the verified complaint and, as so modified, the order is otherwise affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Article 9 of the lease and Article 43 of the rider, defendant-landlord is responsible for any structural repairs necessitated by the fire. The court’s reliance upon the damage report prepared for plaintiff’s insurer was misplaced since such report, by the terms of plaintiff’s fire insurance policy, was limited to personal property losses. There exist questions of fact as to whether there was any structural damage to the premises. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 17 - 00219 - CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K .L., J.L., AND K.L., CHILDREN

---------- FROM THE 360TH DISTRI CT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 360

- 571807

- 15

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant P.L. (Father) attempts to appeal from an “Order on Motion for Withdrawal of Co unsel” signed on May 18, 2017. On June 28, 2017, we sent a letter to Father expressing our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (explaining that “th e general rule, with a few mostly statutory

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment”) ; Davis v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs. , No. 03

- 10

- 00624

- CV, 2010 WL 4367076, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Nov. 5, 2010, no pet.) (mem . op.) (“A trial court’s order granting a motion to withdraw is not an appealable interlocutory order.”). We stated that unless Father or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by July 10,
2017 , the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Father filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Therefore , we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DELIVERED: July 27, 2017