alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Not For Publication in West's Federal Reporter

Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 02-2095

JOSEPH POPE,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

JOHN MARSHALL,

Respondent, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Lipez and Howard, Circuit Judges.

Joseph Pope on brief pro se.

Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, and Annette C. Benedetto,

Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

October 9, 2003
1 Petitioner implies that his waiver cannot be valid absent

a colloquy with the trial judge. That is plainly incorrect. See

Siciliano v. Vose, 834 F.2d 29, 30 (1st Cir. 1987).

-2-

Per Curiam. Pro se petitioner Joseph Pope appeals a district

court order that denied his claims for habeas relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254. The court thereafter issued a certificate of

appealability with respect to the petitioner's ineffective

assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims. Having

thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties' briefs on appeal,

we agree that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief,

substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. The

record shows that defense counsel's advice that petitioner should

not testify was a reasonable strategic choice, and petitioner has

failed to overcome the presumption of correctness that attaches to

the finding that he validly waived his right to testify.1

Petitioner has failed to show that the Supreme Judicial Court's

decision rejecting his claim that his trial counsel rendered

ineffective assistance by failing to object to the trial court's

instructions concerning the petitioner's right to remain silent was

contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established

federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. The petitioner's

remaining claims fail, either because they are meritless or because

they are procedurally defaulted and petitioner has failed to make

the showing required to excuse his default.
-3-

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the statute of

limitations issue. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

See Loc. Rule 27(c).
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Allied Products Corporation
registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 33-60058) of our report, dated
April 15, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Allied Products Corporation and consolidated
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and for the three years in the
period December 31, 1998, which report is included in the 1998 Annual Report of
Form 10-K.

                                             PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago, Illinois
February 21, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT
      23.2


**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**







AMERCO


Reno,
      NV





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
      Statements on Form S-3 (no. 333-10119, 333-73357, 333-48396 and
      33-56571) of AMERCO and consolidated entities of our report dated June 6,
      2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements of SAC Holding II
      Corporation (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Blackwater Investments, Inc.) and
      its
      subsidiaries’ consolidated in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
      the year ended March 31, 2007.














Semple,
      Marchal & Cooper, LLP





Phoenix,
      Arizona


June 6,
      2007
Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission
Commissioners’ Monthly Docket Report at Close of Business on October 31, 2022
 
DOCKET
NUMBER
RESPONDENT'S
NAME
DOCKETED

TYPE*

BRIEFING
NOTICE DATE
BRIEFING STATUS
COMMISSIONER NOT PARTICIPATING
1
16-1713
United States Postal Service
08/31/20
DFR
09/25/20
Closed

2
16-1813
United States Postal Service
08/31/20
DFR
09/25/20
Closed

3
16-1872
United States Postal Service
08/31/20
DFR
09/25/20
Closed

4
17-0023
United States Postal Service
08/31/20
DFR
09/25/20
Closed

5
17-0279
United States Postal Service
08/31/20
DFR
09/25/20
Closed

 6
18-0242
Onekey, LLC
02/05/21
DFR
02/18/21
Closed

 7 
18-0731
UHS of Delaware, Inc. and Premier Behavioral Health Solutions of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Suncoast Behavioral Health Center
05/19/21
DFR
05/21/21
Closed

 8
18-1287
First Marine, LLC
05/19/21
DFR
05/27/21
Closed

 9
18-1288
First Marine, LLC
05/19/21
DFR
05/27/21
Closed

10
18-0701
Midvale Paper Box Company, Inc.
10/21/21
DFR
11/09/21
Closed

11
20-0762
CentiMark Corporation
10/27/21
DFR
11/09/21
Closed

12
20-0653
Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
10/28/21
DFR
11/05/21
Closed

13
19-0622
Anthony Marano Co.
02/10/22
DFR
02/16/22
Closed

14
20-0541
Harvey Builders d/b/a Harvey Cleary Builders
03/03/22
DFR
03/11/22
Closed

15
19-0550
UHS of Denver, Inc., d/b/a Highlands Behavioral Health System
03/31/22
DFR
04/06/22
Closed

16
21-0432
Ariana Murrell-Rosario d/b/a Liberty Tax Service
07/01/22
DFR
07/13/22
Open

17
20-1212
Roy Rock, LLC
07/14/22
DFR
07/15/22
Closed

18
20-0232
U.S. Ceiling Corp.
09/29/22
DFR
10/05/22
Open

 *DFR – Direction For Review
  REM – Appellate Remand
  INT REV – Interlocutory Review
## Thomasina Rogers Designated Acting Chairman Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

**Thomasina Rogers Designated Acting ChairmanOccupational Safety and Health Review Commission**

On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama designated Thomasina V. Rogers as Acting Chairman of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. She began her service on the Review Commission in 1998, after being appointed by President Clinton and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. She previously served as Chairman from June 1999 to September 2002.

In a statement, Acting Chairman Rogers stated:
> 
I am extremely honored that President Obama has designated me to serve as Acting Chairman of the Review Commission. In my 30 years of government service, both as a political appointee and as a member of the career staff of three executive agencies, I have never been more proud.

A safer workplace through the fair application of the statute we administer is a goal that must always remain squarely in our viewfinder. Our nation of workers and employers deserves that much.

I wish to thank Commissioner Thompson for his leadership as Chairman, for his spirit of collegiality and for his commitment to the work of the Commission. I also wish to thank the dedicated agency staff whose contributions make our successes possible.

Prior to joining the Review Commission, Ms. Rogers chaired the Administrative Conference of the United States and was Legal Counsel to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She is a graduate of Northwestern University and Columbia University School of Law.
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NitroMed, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Argeris N. Karabelas, Ph.D., President and interim Chief Executive Officerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

###### (1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

###### (2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: August 3, 2006 |   |                                          |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |                                          |
|                       |   | /s/ ARGERIS N. KARABELAS, Ph.D.               |
|                       |   | Argeris N. Karabelas, Ph.D.                   |
|                       |   | President and interim Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

 Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v. OSHRC Docket No. 16-1865 

AJM PACKAGING CORP., 

Respondent.

BRIEFING NOTICE

The parties are requested to brief the following issues: 

(1) Whether the judge erred in finding that the cited provision, 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1910.147(c)(4)(i) (development, documentation, and use of energy 

control procedures), applies. 

(2) Whether the judge erred in finding that the Secretary failed to establish

constructive knowledge of the violative condition. 

(3) Whether, if the Secretary established a violation, it is properly 

characterized as repeat. 

The parties are advised that when a case is directed for review to consider either the merits 

or characterization of an item, the appropriateness of the penalty is also subject to review. 

Accordingly, the parties may address the amount of the penalty if they so choose. 

All briefs are to be filed in accordance with Commission Rule 93.1 The first brief is to be 

filed within 40 days of this notice. A party not intending to file a brief shall notify the Commission 

in accordance with Commission Rule 93. The time for filing any responsive briefs (or letters filed 

in lieu of briefs) shall commence on the date of service.

 BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION

Dated: October 14, 2020 /s/ 

 John X. Cerveny 

 Executive Secretary

1 The Commission requests that all briefs include an alphabetical table of authorities with 

references to the pages on which they are cited, and that an asterisk be placed in the left-hand 

margin of the table to indicate those authorities on which the brief principally relies. The 

Commission also requests that copies of cited authority, other than statutes, regulations, case law, 

law journal articles, and legal treatises, be provided to the Commission and to the opposing party. 

Parties should be cautioned that these materials will be considered only if appropriate.
Docket No. FAA - 2012 - 1102
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,156
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    111,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               215,368
<PP&E>                                         835,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                 459,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 665,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,635
<BONDS>                                        233,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,275
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   665,892
<SALES>                                        843,968
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               843,968
<CGS>                                          267,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  458,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,099
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                369,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                       131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            369,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   369,681
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 90325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26548]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 15, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 631 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-279, K2025-277.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-26548 Filed 11-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Credco's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1998 and
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the twelve months ended
December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             648
<SECURITIES>                                       353
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                       597
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         20,934
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,993
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,650
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,214
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   632
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,190
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    365
<INCOME-TAX>                                       128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                237
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Isaac Adams, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

1. Counts for an assault with intent to murder by shooting at another with a pistol, and for shooting at another with a pistol, may be joined in the same indictment.

2. Evidence not offered upon the trial cannot be considered on a motion for a new trial.

3. Where there are two counts in an indictment., and a general verdict of guilty is returned, the legal intendment is that reference is had to the highest grade of offense charged.

*4.*The verdict is sustained by the evidence.

Criminal law. Indictment. Evidence. New trial. Verdict. Before Judge James Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. November Term, 1873.

*566For the facts of this case, see the decision.

J. M. Russell, for plaintiff in error.

W. A. Little, solicitor general, by brief, for the state.

Warner, Chief Justice.

The defendant was indicted for the offense of an assault, with intent to murder. The indictment contained two counts, in one of the counts the defendant was charged with the offense of “shooting at another.” On the trial the jury returned a general verdict of guilty. A motion in arrest of judgment, and also a motion tor a new trial, was made by the defendant, both of which were overruled, and the defendant excepted.

1. Both counts in the indictment charged an offense punishable, under the Code, with imprisonment in the jienitentiary, and two counts for a felony, may be joined in the same indictment, such as an assault with intent to murder, by shooting at another with a pistol, and shooting at another with a pistol. The joinder of the two counts in the same indictment constituted no ground for arresting the judgment, and the motion therefor was properly overruled.

2. It appears from the bill of exceptions that the two indictments found by the grand jury pi’ior to the one on which the defendant was arraigned and tried, and which had been *nol pros’d,*were not offered in evidence by the defendant at the trial, but were shown to the court on the motion for a new trial, and therefore could not properly be considered by the court on the hearing of that motion.

3. When there are two counts in the indictment, and the jury return a general verdict of guilty, the legal intendment thereof is that they found the defendant guilty of the highest grade of offense alleged in the indictment: *Dean vs. The State,*43 *Georgia Reports,*218.

4. That verdict, in this case, is fully sustained by the evidence in the record. '

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50801

Summary Calendar

 

DONALD C. THOMAS, JR.

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ABBOTT BUILDING COMPANY; ABBOTT BUILDING

COMPANY OF SAN ANGELO INCORPORATED;

H. EUGENE ABBOTT; RICHARD E. ABBOTT;

TIMOTHY J. HODGENS; DON THOMAS;

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(MO-96-CV-44)

 

May 21, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff Donald C. Thomas appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his

R.I.C.O. suit against the defendants. In Plaintiff’s own words, his R.I.C.O. claim is predicated on

alleged acts by defendantsin a “scheme to deceive theBankruptcyCourt, defraud Appellant and [the]
2

creditors,” in the Abbott Development Company bankruptcy. Plaintiff’s claim is based on the

assertion that one of defendants’ representations to the bankruptcy court was untrue, and that the

Bankruptcy court’sreliance on this misrepresentation caused it to refuse a plan under which Plaintiff

would have assumed ownership and control ofthe bankrupt company. However, as Plaintiff candidly

acknowledges, he was a participant in the bankruptcy court and was represented by counsel there.

Almost eleven months passed between this “misrepresentation” to the bankruptcy court and the

ultimate approval of the reorganization plan. Plaintiff points to nothing that might have prevented

him from raising this issue in the bankruptcy court, or on direct appeal of the reorganization plan.

This court has often recognized the importance of finality in bankruptcy judgments. Matter

of Baudoin, 981 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we apply a traditional test for matters res

judicata in the bankruptcy context. “An arrangement confirmed by a bankruptcy court has the effect

of a judgment rendered by a district court. Any attempt by the parties to re-litigate any of the matters

that were raised or could have been raised therein is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” Id.

(emphasis original). We may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record. Little

v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1079 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Morales v. Department of Army,

947 F.2d 766 (5th Cir. 1991). We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment because

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by resjudicata. Accordingly, we decline to review Plaintiff’s claims that

the bankruptcy court’s approval of a reorganization plan not to Plaintiff’s liking was the result of

R.I.C.O. violations sufficient to confer standing on Plaintiff.

AFFIRMED.