alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Donald LONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon GILL and Lane County Sheriff's Office, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-35669

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 * Portland, Oregon

Filed May 10, 2017

Marianne G. Dugan, Attorney, Eugene, OR, Melissa. Dorothy Wischerath, Law Office of M.D. Wischerath, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Stephen E. Dingle, Sebastian Tapia, Lane County Office of Legal Counsel Courthouse/PSB, Eugene, OR, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: BYBEE and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

**The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

*937MEMORANDUM ***

Donald Long prevailed after a jury trial in this 42 U.S.C. § 1988 suit against the Lane County Sheriffs Office (“LCSO”) and a deputy sheriff arising out of the towing of Long’s truck. After the district court amended its judgment to reduce the damages and declined to award the full amount of counsel fees Long sought, he appealed. We affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting LCSO’s Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment. *See McDowell v. Calderon,*197 F.3d 1253, 1255-56 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam). The jury made separate damage awards under both of Long’s theories seeking to impose liability on the LCSO under *Monell v. Department of Social Services,*436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). But Long admits he advanced only one Fourteenth Amendment claim, and therefore was entitled to recover only once. *See Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com, Ltd.,*762 F.3d 829, 847-48 (9th Cir. 2014).

2. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of attorney’s fees to award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The court need only award fees “that it deems reasonable,” and may award less than the amount requested if it gives “a specific explanation” for doing so. *Moreno v. City of Sacramento,*534 F.3d 1106, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court reasonably found that this case was “anything but complex,” and that the results obtained did not require two attorneys.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EPA Reg. No

. 524

- 522

Vol. 2
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 900 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 900

 To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 
1992 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of 
  repayment contracts between the United States and the Central Utah 
  Water Conservancy District dated December 28, 1965 and November 26, 
                     1985, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 8 (legislative day, June 5), 1995

Mr. Bennett (for himself and Mr. Hatch) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 
1992 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of 
  repayment contracts between the United States and the Central Utah 
  Water Conservancy District dated December 28, 1965 and November 26, 
                     1985, 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. PREPAYMENT OF REPAYMENT CERTAIN CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED 
              STATES AND THE CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT.

    Section 210 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 
Adjustment Act of 1992 (106 Stat.4624) is amended by striking the 
second sentence and inserting the following: ``The Secretary shall 
allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States 
and the District dated December 28, 1965 and November 26, 1985, 
providing for repayment of the municipal and industrial water delivery 
facilities for which repayment is provided pursuant to those contracts, 
under the same terms and conditions as are contained in the 
supplemental contract providing for the prepayment of the Jordan 
Aqueduct System dated October 28, 1993.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14277-14278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05286]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Innate Immune Memory Impacting HIV 
Acquisition and/or Control (R21 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: April 11-12, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E71, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lee G. Klinkenberg, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review

[[Page 14278]]

Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of 
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 
Fishers Lane, Room 3E71, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-7749, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e424b4b0045424740454b404c4b5c496e40474600494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c50595912575055525759525e594e5b7c525554125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 8, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-05286 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl L. LINYARD, a/k/a Gus, a/k/a Big Kahuna, a/k/a Kahuna, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6964

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 21, 2017

Carl L. Linyard, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: .

Carl L. Linyard appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendments 750 and 759 and his motion to reconsider that denial.* We review *196these orders for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Muldrow,*844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). Our review of the record reveals no such abuse. As the district court noted, Linyard has filed previous unsuccessful motions asserting the same grounds. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 The nonjurisdictional limit on motions to reconsider rulings on § 3582(c)(2) motions, *United States v. Goodwyn,*596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), is waived in the absence of a Government motion invoking the limitation, *United States v. May,*855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017), *cert.*denied, - U.S.L.W. -, 138 S.Ct. 252, 199 L.Ed.2d 124, No. 17-142, 2017 WL 3219499 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2017).
<PAGE>

         EXHIBIT 21.  SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

                                                        TEAM HEALTH SUBSIDIARIES


                  SUBSIDIARY NAME/DOMESTIC STATE
                  ------------------------------

1.    Access Nurse PM, Inc. (UT)

2.    Acute Care Specialists, Co. (PA)

3.    After Hours Pediatric Practices, Inc. (FL)

4.    Alliance Corporation (WV)

5.    Charles L. Springfield, Inc. (CA)

6.    Clinic Management Services, Inc. (TN)

7.    Daniel & Yeager, Inc. (AL)

8.    Drs. Sheer, Ahearn & Associates, Inc. (FL)

9.    Emergency Coverage Corporation (TN)

10.   Emergency Management Specialists, Inc. (WV)

11.   Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (NJ)

12.   Emergency Physicians of Manatee, Inc. (FL)

13.   Emergency Professional Services, Inc. (OH)

14.   Emergicare Management, Incorporated (TN)

15.   Fischer Mangold, a California Partnership (CA)

16.   Herschel Fischer, Inc. (CA)

17.   Hospital Based Physician Services, Inc. (TN)

18.   IMBS, Inc. (FL)

19.   InPhyNet Anesthesia of West Virginia, Inc. (WV)

20.   InPhyNet Contracting Services, Inc. (FL)

21.   InPhyNet Hospital Services, Inc. (FL)

22.   InPhyNet Joliet, Inc. (FL)


                                        1
<PAGE>

23.   InPhyNet Louisiana, Inc. (FL)

24.   InPhyNet Medical Management Institute, Inc. (FL)

25.   InPhyNet South Broward, Inc. (FL)

26.   Integrated Specialists Management Services, Inc. (CA)

27.   Karl G. Mangold, Inc. (CA)

28.   Med:Assure Systems, Inc. (TN)

29.   Medical Management Resources, Inc. (FL)

30.   MetroAmerican Radiology, Inc. (NC)

31.   Mt. Diablo Emergency Physicians, a California General Partnership (CA)

32.   Northwest Emergency Physicians, Incorporated (WA)

33.   Paragon Anesthesia, Inc. (FL)

34.   Paragon Contracting Services, Inc. (FL)

35.   Paragon Healthcare Limited Partnership (FL)

36.   Paragon Imaging Consultants, Inc. (FL)

37.   Park Med of Florida, Inc. (FL)

38.   Physician Integration Consulting Services, Inc. (CA)

39.   Quantum Plus, Inc. (CA)

40.   Reich, Seidelmann & Janicki Co. (OH)


41.   Rosendorf, Margulies, Boruschok & Schoenbaum

      Radiology Associates of Hollywood, Inc. (FL)

42.   Sarasota Emergency Medical Consultants, Inc. (FL)

43.   Sentinel Medical Services, Inc. (FL)

44.   Southeastern Emergency Physicians, Inc. (TN)

45.   Southeastern Emergency Physicians of Memphis, Inc. (TN)

46.   Team Anesthesia, Inc. (TN)

47.   Team Health Billing Services, LP (TN)


                                       2
<PAGE>

48.   Team Health Financial Services, Inc. (TN)

49.   Team Health Southwest, LP (DE)

50.   Team Radiology, Inc. (NC)

51.   THBS, Inc. (DE)

52.   The Emergency Associates for Medicine, Inc. (FL)

53.   Virginia Emergency Physicians Inc. (VA)


                                       3
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 19, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41559 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS ALEXANDER VALDEZ-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-2572-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Alexander Valdez-Medina (Valdez) appeals the 48-month sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . He argues that the district court erred by finding that his prior Texas felony conviction for burglary of a habitation was a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). We have held, however, that a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation is a crime of violence under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it was equivalent to the enumerated offense of burglary of a dwelling.No. 05-41559 -2- United States v. Garcia-Mendez , 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006). Valdez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Garcia-Mendez and raises it to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. Valdez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Valdez 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 repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez

Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Valdez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it also to preserve it for further review. Valdez’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. We REMAND to the district court for correction of the judgment pursuant to FED . R. CRIM . P. 36 to reflect, in the written Statement of Reasons, that Valdez had a criminal history category IV, not V, and that the applicable guidelines range was 57 to 71 months of imprisonment, not 70 to 87 months. AFFIRMED. REMANDED FOR CORRECTION OF CLERICAL ERROR.
Order entered June 6, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00481-CV

FRENCH LARRY TAYLOR, Appellant

V.

WENDIE RENEE WILLIAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-56604-2015

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 2, 2016 motion for an extension of time to file a 

brief. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed, appellant’s brief is not yet due. On May 

10, 2016, the Court sent a past-due notice to the court reporter instructing her to file the 

reporter’s record within thirty days. Appellant’s brief will be due thirty days after the reporter’s 

record is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion as 

premature.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Casimiro SOLIZ, also known as Casimiro Soliz, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11375 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Casimiro Soliz, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ca-simiro Soliz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Soliz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-*815lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
|       (i)  | the      accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal      quarter ended April 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|       (ii)      | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |   |                                                                                  |
|------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  June      9, 2010 | By:    | /s/      Andrew J. Buckland                                                           |   |
|                               |   | Andrew      J. BucklandChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer) |

----
#### Sylester O. OKERE, Authorized Representative for Sylvester O. Okere, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Melvin C. HIGH; John Doe 1, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1099

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

Sylester O. Okere, Appellant Pro Se. Jason L. Levine, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Annapolis, Mainland, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit ' Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sylvester O. Okere appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for default and granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Okere v. High, No. 8:16-cv-02152-DKC, 2016 WL 7405434 (D. Md. Dec. 22,2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 600 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the taxation of 

hard cider. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2015 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mr. COLLINS of New York) 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 modify 

the taxation of hard cider. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cider Industry De5 serves Equal Regulation Act’’ or the ‘‘CIDER Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF HARD CIDER DEFINITION. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5041 of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new subsection: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 600 IH

1 ‘‘(g) HARD CIDER.—For purposes of this section, the 

2 term ‘hard cider’ means any wine— 

3 ‘‘(1) the carbonation level of which does not ex4 ceed 6.4 grams per liter, 

5 ‘‘(2) which is derived primarily from apples, 

6 apple juice concentrate and water, pears, or pear 

7 juice concentrate and water, 

8 ‘‘(3) which contains no fruit product or fruit 

9 flavoring other than apple or pear, and 

10 ‘‘(4) which contains at least one-half of 1 per11 cent and less than 8.5 percent alcohol by volume.’’. 

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (6) of 

13 section 5041(b) of such Code is amended by striking 

14 ‘‘which is a still wine’’ and all that follows through ‘‘alco15 hol by volume’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to wine removed after December 

18 31, 2015. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**PowerCerv Corporation and Subsidiary**

**Form 10-QSB**

 

**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**POWERCERV CORPORATION ANDSUBSIDIARY**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302**

 

I, John Stanton, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PowerCerv Corporation (the “Registrant”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c) presented in this quarterly report conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of the most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

 

May 20, 2004 

 

/s/ John Stanton            

Name: JohnStanton 

Title: Chairman of the Board, 

Principal Financial Officer and Principal 

Accounting Officer (Chairman)