alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS GRIMES,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 11-56738

D.C. No. 3:06-cv-02309-BTMWVG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Barry T. Moskowitz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Defendant prison officials appeal from the district court’s order denying

them qualified immunity in California state prisoner Dennis Grimes’ 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. We have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial

FILED

JAN 17 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of qualified immunity. Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 2002). We

review de novo, Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 2002), and we

reverse and remand.

The district court erred in denying defendants qualified immunity on

Grimes’ First Amendment claim because a reasonable officer in defendants’

position could have concluded, pursuant to California regulations in force at the

time, that requiring verification of Grimes’ religious belief before providing a

vegetarian diet was constitutional. See Resnick v. Adams, 348 F.3d 763, 771 n.8

(9th Cir. 2003) (stating, in a First Amendment exercise of religion case, “[w]e have

held that ‘when a public official acts in reliance on a duly enacted statute or

ordinance, that official ordinarily is entitled to qualified immunity’” (citation

omitted)).

While this court previously affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on

Grimes’ Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claim

as to these defendants, see Grimes v. Tilton, 384 F. App’x 603 (9th Cir. 2010),

RLUIPA provides broader protection for religious exercise than does the First

Amendment. See Greene v. Solano County Jail, 513 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2008)

(recognizing that RLUIPA “expanded the reach of the protection” afforded by the

2 11-56738
First Amendment and requires the government to meet a “much stricter burden” to

support a burden on religious exercise). 

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as

to Grimes’ First Amendment claim and remand to the district court for further

proceedings on Grimes’ RLUIPA claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3 11-56738
From: Chuck French [mailto:French.Chuck@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 5:26 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Ann Johnson; Phil Mulrine; Marinshaw, Richard; Hancy, Cindy Wang 

Subject: Re: RIN 2060-AQ60 - Chromium RTR -- Requested Documents

Hi Cortney, 

Attached is the surface tension memo. We'll send the other documents soon. 

Thanks. 

Chuck 

Phone: 919-541-7912 

(See attached file: Cr Electroplating Surface Tension Memo_7.5.12.docx) 

"Higgins, Cortney" ---07/17/2012 09:16:30 AM---Hi Chuck, I hope you had a good weekend. 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Ann Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 07/17/2012 09:16 AM 

Subject: RIN 2060-AQ60 - Chromium RTR -- Requested Documents

 

Hi Chuck, 

I hope you had a good weekend. 

Can you please send the following documents referenced in the preamble: 

- Development of Revised Surface Tension Limits for Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Tanks 

Controlled with Wetting Agent Fume Suppressants document (p 18) 

- Revised Procedures for Determining Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness for Chromium 

Eectroplating and Anodizing (p. 26) 

- Responses to Comments (RTC) document (p 26) 

- Emissions Reductions and Cost Effectiveness of HEPA Filter Retrofits for Chromium Electroplating, 

and Emissions Reductions and Cost Effectiveness of Composite Mesh Pads for Chromium 

Electroplating (p 54) 

- “cost analysis technical memo” (p 61) 

- Procedures for Determining Control Costs and Cost Effectiveness for Chromium Electroplating 

Supplemental Proposal memorandum (p 77) (It’s not clear this is the same as the document cited on 

page 26). 

- Information on non-PFOS Fume Suppressants in Minnesota Chromium Electroplating Facilities 

memorandum (p 78) 

- Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and Technology Review: Chromium Electroplating (p 97) 

- Risk Assessment (and supporting documents) – can you please provide a redline comparison of the 

risk assessment main document compared to the proposal (not the appendices)? Can you also send 

this as a word document. 

- EJ or Demographics analysis
Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

________________________________________________ 

Cortney Higgins 

Policy Analyst 

OMB/OIRA/NRE 

202.395.7856 

chiggins@omb.eop.gov
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5718 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to revise the new market 

tax credit rules for population census tracts with low populations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2012 

Mr. TOWNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to revise 

the new market tax credit rules for population census 

tracts with low populations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REVISION OF NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT 

4 RULES FOR TRACTS WITH LOW POPU5 LATIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 45D(e) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tracts 

8 with low population) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(4) TRACTS WITH LOW POPULATION.—A pop10 ulation census tract with a population of less than 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5718 IH

1 2,000 shall be treated as a low-income community 

2 for purposes of this section if— 

3 ‘‘(A) such tract is contiguous to 1 or more 

4 low-income communities (determined without 

5 regard to this paragraph), and 

6 ‘‘(B) either— 

7 ‘‘(i) such tract is within an empower8 ment zone the designation of which is in 

9 effect under section 1391, or 

10 ‘‘(ii) any 1 or more of such contiguous 

11 low-income communities meets at least 1 of 

12 the following criteria: 

13 ‘‘(I) The poverty rate is greater 

14 than 30 percent. 

15 ‘‘(II) The median family in16 come— 

17 ‘‘(aa) in the case of a com18 munity not located within a met19 ropolitan area, does not exceed 

20 60 percent of statewide median 

21 family income, or 

22 ‘‘(bb) in the case of a com23 munity located within a metro24 politan area, does not exceed 60 

25 percent of the greater of stateVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:28 May 13, 2012 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5718.IH H5718

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5718 IH

1 wide median family income or the 

2 metropolitan area median family 

3 income. 

4 ‘‘(III) The unemployment rate is 

5 not less than 1.5 times the national 

6 average unemployment rate. 

7 For purposes of this paragraph, any population cen8 sus tract which is a zero population census tract 

9 shall be treated as having the levels of economic dis10 tress which are present in the contiguous census 

11 tract.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 December 31, 2011. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 November 30, 2016

p1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

152855(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152855

COA: 327980

Wayne CC: 98-004724-FC

THEODORE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 6, 

2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### Ex parte PITT.

No. 23962.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, 'Judge.

Relator was an inmate of the state prison on the 21st day of June, 1946, and on that' date Governor Coke R. 'Stevenson issued his proclamation granting to relator a conditional pardon containing, among other things, the following stipulations and conditions :

> “If the said Ray Lagran Pitt shall faithfully perform and fulfill all conditions hereof and comply fully with the same and with the laws of the State of Texas and of the United States and the regulations and requirements of said Parole Board, then in that event and in that event only, the said Ray Lagran.Pitt shall be entitled to .and shall receive credit on his original sentence for the -time spent at large under the terms hereof. If, however, he is guilty at any time of any misconduct or violation of the law or fails to comply in any way with the terms hereof or for any other reason the Governor may deem sufficient (including any facts not known to the Governor at the time of this clemency), the conditional pardon .shall be and is subject to revocation at the Governor’s discretion, with or without hearing, as the Governor may determine, and upon revocation by the Governor of this conditional pardon, same shall become and be null and void and of no force and effect, and the said Ray Lagran Pitt shall be, by order of the Governor, returned to and. confined in the penitentiary, to serve the sentence originally imposed upon him or so much thereof as had not been served by the said Ray Lagran Pitt at the time of his • release under the terms of this or any previous clemency and the time during which the said Ray Lagran Pitt is at large under this or any previous clemency shall pot be considered or credited to the said Ray Lagran Pitt as time served on his original sentence.”

It is noted from the statement of facts that it was agreed by all parties that at the time of the granting of this conditional pardon and relator’s discharge from the penitentiary thereunder on June 21, 1946, he had five months’ and five days’ time to serve under his sentence, and it is apparent therefrom that the revocation of such pardon came while relator was still within thé period of time embraced in his sentence.

This court has no power to review the wisdom of an act of the Governor so long as he operates within the law in exercising his own discretion and judgment in the performance of his constitutional duties. See Ex parte Ferdin, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 590, 183 S.W.2d 466. He has the right to issue conditional pardons, placing therein such conditions as are deemed by him advisable, and when such pardon is accepted by the convict, he is bound thereby. See Ex parte Frazier, 91 Tex.Cr.R. 475, *597239 S.W. 972. The sole arbiter of the wisdom of the revocation is the Governor, under the terms hereinabove set forth. See Ex parte Meza, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 121, 185 S.W.2d 444.

. The relator is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Tarrant County to be conveyed to the penitentiary in order to finish serving his original sentence.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26849]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Federal Open Market Committee; Domestic Policy Directive of 
August 22, 2000

    In accordance with Sec. 71.5 of its rules regarding availability of 
information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic 
policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its 
meeting held on August 22, 2000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 
meeting of August 22, 2000, which include the domestic policy 
directive issued at that meeting, are available upon request to the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 
20551. The minutes are published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin and 
in the Board's annual report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial 
conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable 
growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in 
the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent 
with maintaining the federal funds rate at an average of around 6\1/2\ 
percent.

    By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, October 12, 2000.
Donald L. Kohn,
Secretary, Federal Open Market Committee.
 [FR Doc. 00-26849 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
KPMGLLP
Chartered Accountants
Telephone
(403) 691-8000
2700 205 - 5 Avenue SW
Telefax
(403) 691-8008
Calgary AB  T2P 4B9
Internet
www.kpmg.ca










To the Board of Directors of Paramount Energy Operating Company, 
as Administrator of Paramount Energy Trust



We consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of:

•

our audit report dated March 7, 2008 on the consolidated balance sheets of Paramount Energy Trust as at December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the consolidatedstatements of earnings (loss) and deficit and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2007,

•

our audit report on the reconciliation to United States GAAP dated March 7, 2008,

•

our Comments by Auditors for U.S. Readers on Canada-U.S. Reporting Differences, dated March 7, 2008,

•

our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated March 7, 2008 on the Trusts internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007,

each of which is contained in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.



/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Canada

March 7, 2008







KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG

network of independent member firms affiliated with  KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

KPMG Canada provides services to KPMP LLP.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0**
**- 1832** 

JAMES HOWARD SCHROPP ,

P etitioner

– Appell ant ,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent

– Appell ee
.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. ( Tax Ct. No. 24031

- 07L )

Submitted : Dece mber 16 , 2010 Decided: December 22 , 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS , Circuit Judge s
.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

James Howard Schropp , Appellant Pro Se. Bruce R. Ellisen, Curtis Clarence Pett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C. , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

James Howard Schropp appeals from the t ax court ’ s

order upholding the Commissioner’s issuance of a not ice of

federal tax lien as to his 2005 income tax deficiency and

upholding the determination that his Offer in Compromise was

insufficient. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the t ax court. Schropp v. Comm’r of IR S , No. 24031

- 07L

(U.S.T.C. Apr. 15, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRM ED
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Tidelands Bancshares, Inc.(the “Company”), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of thiscertification:

 

1.               The annual report of the Company for theperiod ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on this date (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Robert E. Coffee, Jr. |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Robert E.  Coffee, Jr.    |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|   |   |   |   | March 16, 2009            |
|   |   |   |   |                           |
|   |   |   |   | /s/ Alan W. Jackson            |
|   |   |   |   | Alan W. Jackson                |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer        |
|   |   |   |   | March 16, 2009            |

 

----
* 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

July 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10840

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO ALBERTO PAZZI-DE HOYOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Consolidated with

No. 06-10841

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO ALBERTO PAZZI-DE HOYOS, also known

as Mario Alberto Mendoza-Garcia, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-53-ALL

USDC No. 5:06-CR-13-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
No. 06-10840

c/w No. 06-10841

-2-

Mario Alberto Pazzi-De Hoyos pleaded guilty to illegal entry

after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pazzi-De

Hoyos’ supervised release with respect to a prior conviction was

also revoked. Pazzi-De Hoyos appeals his conviction and

revocation, arguing that (1) venue in the Northern District of

Texas was improper with respect to his illegal reentry guilty

plea conviction and (2) the district court erred when it used his

prior aggravated felony conviction to enhance his illegal reentry

sentence. 

Pazzi-De Hoyos’ physical presence as well as the illegal

status of his presence was discovered by immigration authorities

when he was within the Northern District of Texas. Under

8 U.S.C. § 1326, venue was proper in the Northern District. See

United States v. Asibor, 109 F.3d 1023, 1037 (5th Cir. 1997);

United States v. Santana-Castellano, 74 F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir.

1996). 

Pazzi-De Hoyos also challenges the constitutionality of

§ 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony

convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the

offense that must be found by a jury. Pazzi-De Hoyos’

constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Pazzi-De Hoyos

contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that

a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres

in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have
No. 06-10840

c/w No. 06-10841

-3-

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 41

F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005). Pazzi-De Hoyos properly concedes

that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62342-62343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26697]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP98-40-027]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Refund Report

October 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 18, 2000, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (PEPL) tendered for filing its 1999 Kansas Ad Valorem Tax 
Annual Report in the above-referenced docket pursuant to the 
Commission's Order Denying Petitions for Adjustment and Establishing 
Procedures for the Payment of Refunds issued September 10, 1997, in 
Docket No. RP97-369-000, et al. (September 10, 1997 Order).
    PEPL states that Appendix A to its filing contains the Kansas Ad 
Valorem tax refunds due from PEPL's May 18, 1999 refund report, and 
reflects the adjustments for additional Kansas Ad Valorem tax refunds 
that would result from the Commission's Order on Remand issued on April 
12, 2000 in Docket No. RP97-369-013. In accordance with Ordering 
Paragraph (B) of the Commission's February 29, 2000 Order Accepting 
Refund Report in Docket No. RP98-40-22, PEPL has updated the carrying 
charges on the unpaid amounts in column (3) of Appendix A. The Kansas 
Ad Valorem Tax refund amounts due at March 31, 2000 are shown in column 
(4) of Appendix A. PEPL will be notifying the producer suppliers that 
have an adjusted refund amount resulting from the Commission's April 
12, 2000 Order.
    In its May 18, 1999 refund report, PEPL indicated that it has 
received refunds of Kansas Ad Valorem Taxes during the period April 
1998 through April 1999 totaling $125,724.51. PEPL has received no 
additional Kansas Ad Valorem Tax refunds from its producer suppliers 
during the twelve-month period April 1999 through March 2000. Pursuant 
to the Commission's September 10, 1997 order, PEPL will continue to 
accrue interest on the amounts shown in Appendix B until they are 
distributed to its jurisdictional customers.
    PEPL states that copies of its filing have been provided to all 
parties and

[[Page 62343]]

respective State Regulatory Commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before October 23, 2000. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
reviewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 
202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26697 Filed 10-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M