alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Trivansky SWINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WATERLOO, IOWA, CITY OF; Black Hawk County Jail; Black Hawk County Sheriff’s Office; Anthony Nai, Deputy; Julie Lein, Deputy; Aaron Haas, Deputy; Iowa, State of; Todd Schmitt, Deputy; B Rollins, Deputy; Wyatt Landers, Deputy; Zachary Holbach, Deputy, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-1350

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 6, 2017

Filed: October 19, 2017

Trivansky Swington, Pro Se

*862John T. McCoy, McCoy & Riley, Waterloo, IA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Trivansky Swington appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference stemming from events that occurred while Swington was confined at the Black Hawk County Jail. Following careful de novo review of the record and the arguments on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons cited in the district court’s memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Swington’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 33.2
                                 ------------



          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o  The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o  The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o  As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                      1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007


                                      2
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                    CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                THREE MONTHS
                                                               ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                               ----------------
                                                                1997     1996
                                                               -------  -------
<S>                                                            <C>      <C>
Net Income.................................................... $    22  $    26
Add:
  Interest expense............................................      22       17
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense....................     --       --
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor........     --       --
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income................      10       16
  Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries................     --       --
                                                               -------  -------
    Earnings as defined....................................... $    54  $    59
                                                               =======  =======
Interest expense.............................................. $    22  $    17
Amortization of capitalized debt expense......................     --       --
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor..........     --       --
Fixed charges of unconsolidated subsidiaries..................     --       --
                                                               -------  -------
    Fixed charges as defined.................................. $    22  $    17
                                                               =======  =======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges............................    2.45x    3.47x
                                                               =======  =======
</TABLE>
#### Anthony Deonta THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald J. TRUMP, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1243

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Anthony Deonta Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Deonta Thomas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Thomas v. Trump,*No. 3:17-cv-00065-GCM (W.D.N.C., Feb. 16, 2017). 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*
#### Benjamin Jacob STRATTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, d/b/a Marc Birnbaun, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1772

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 20, 2017

Benjamin Jacob Stratton, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent'in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Jacob Stratton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Stratton v. Commonwealth of Va.,*No. 1:17-cv-00548-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. May 31, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be*177fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.36

                                ST. PAUL RE, INC.
                                  195 Broadway
                               New York, NY 10007







                                       June 14, 2002



Mr. Michael D. Price
33 Dorothy Drive
Morris Township, NJ 07960


Dear Michael:

            Reference is made to that certain letter agreement dated May 2, 2002
between St. Paul Re, Inc. (the "Company") and you (the "Agreement"). Section 6
of the Agreement sets forth the following sentence:

                   Upon consummation of the IPO and provided you are then
             employed by the Company, you will be entitled to receive a stock
             option grant to purchase that number of shares of Holdings common
             stock (the "IPO Grant") with an aggregate market value equal to
             $5,000,000.00 at a price not greater than the initial offering
             price under the IPO and having a term of ten years.

Such sentence is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                   Upon consummation of the IPO and provided you are then
             employed by the Company, you will be entitled to receive a stock
             option grant to purchase 300,000 shares of Holdings common stock
             (the "IPO Grant") at the initial offering price under the IPO and
             having a term of ten years.

            This amendment to the Agreement is intended to be a binding
obligation upon the Company and yourself. If this amendment to the Agreement
correctly reflects


<Page>

Mr. Michael D. Price
June 14, 2002
Page 2


your understanding, please sign and return one copy to me for the Company's
records.

                                    ST. PAUL RE, INC.


                                    By: /s/ Jerome T. Fadden
                                       --------------------------
                                       Jerome T. Fadden
                                       Chief Executive Officer





The above amendment to the Agreement correctly reflects our understanding, and I
hereby confirm my agreement to the same as of the date first above written.


/s/ Michael D. Price
-------------------------------
       Michael D. Price
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02033**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 02033\02033_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02033\02033_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 02033\02033_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 02033\02033_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02033\02033_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02033\02033_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02033\02033_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02033\02033_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02033\02033_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02033\02033_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file x 02033\02033_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

02033\Certification Statement Plant ID 02033.pdf Plant certification statement 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_PART A MAP-1 Danskammer Survey.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part A MARKED UP AERIAL PHOTO.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part A MARKED UP AERIAL PHOTO.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part A Water Balance Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part D SEC 3.1 WWT-1 BLOCK DIAGRAM.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part F Section 5 Ground Water Well Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part G AERIAL PHOTO.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 02033\Supplemental Documents\02003_Part G AERIAL PHOTO.pptx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02033\Supplemental Documents\02033_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

.
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31,
2010 of Ruby Creek
Resources, Inc (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
Company.





MYRON
      LANDINMyron Landin,Chief  Financial OfficerDecember
      13, 2010
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0574 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0574

**2003/574/EC: Commission Decision of 30 July 2003 amending for the 15th time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 2733) **

*
Official Journal L 196 , 02/08/2003 P. 0027 - 0040 *

Commission Decision

of 30 July 2003

amending for the 15th time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries

(notified under document number C(2003) 2733)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/574/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992, laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council(2), and in particular Article 17(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2003/540/EC(4), established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of Canada officially informed the Commission of amendments to certain approval details of one equine semen collection centre notified to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC.

(3) The competent authorities of the United States of America officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of two additional equine semen collection centres.

(4) It is appropriate to amend the list of approved centres in the light of new information received from the third countries concerned, and to highlight the amendments in the Annex for clarity.

(5) Decision 2000/284/EC should be amended accordingly.

(6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 July 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 146, 13.6.2003, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 35.

(4) OJ L 185, 24.7.2003, p. 27.

ANNEX

"ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>"
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6991 

To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

in Wyandotte County, Kansas City, Kansas, as the ‘‘Captain Elwin 

Shopteese VA Clinic’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2024 

Mr. LATURNER (for himself, Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas, Mr. ESTES, and Mr. 

MANN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs in Wyandotte County, Kansas City, 

Kansas, as the ‘‘Captain Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CAPTAIN ELWIN SHOPTEESE 

4 VA CLINIC. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The outpatient clinic of the De6 partment of Veterans Affairs located at 9201 Parallel 

7 Parkway, Kansas City, Kansas, shall after the date of the 

8 enactment of this Act be known and designated as the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6991 IH

1 ‘‘Captain Elwin Shopteese Department of Veterans Af2 fairs Clinic’’ or the ‘‘Captain Elwin Shopteese VA Clinic’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, regula4 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the outpatient clinic referred to in subsection 

6 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Captain Elwin 

7 Shopteese VA Clinic. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Shannon BREWER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35652

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed November 09, 2017

Amy Gilbrough, Attorney, Dougals, Dra-chler & McKee, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kerry Keefe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Michael Reid Tunick, Assistant Regional Counsel, SSA—Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee

*775Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant’s unopposed motion to remand for consideration of new evidence [Doc. # 31] is GRANTED. This appeal is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings.
#### IN RE: Roberto Antoine DARDEN, a/k/a Dizz-e, a/k/a Javon, Petitioner.

No. 17-1457

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Roberto Antoine Darden, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Antoine Darden petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find the present record does not reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-7005

CRAIG EVERETT ROBERTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

(CR-94-65-H, CA-97-306-5-H)

Submitted: August 11, 1998

Decided: September 1, 1998

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Craig Everett Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, Barbara Dickerson Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his motion

filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), as barred

by the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.

1214 (effective Apr. 24, 1996). Appellant's conviction became final

in June 1995. Because Appellant's conviction became final prior to

implementation of the one-year limitation period, Appellant had until

April 23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v.

Angelone, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030, at *5-*6 (4th Cir. July 14,

1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208).

Appellant's § 2255 motion was dated April 22, 1997, the certified

mail receipt was stamped April 23, and the motion was filed on April

24. Thus, Appellant's motion was not time barred. See Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (notice of appeal is deemed filed

when it is delivered to prison officials); see also Burns v. Morton, 134

F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying Houston to the filing of

habeas petition); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep't, 947 F.2d 733,

735-36 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying Houston to filing of civil rights complaint for statute of limitations purposes).

Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue,

vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector Arturo REA-PONCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10016 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 10, 2017

*369James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal-Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, Lara Wynn, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Hector Rea-Ponce raises an argument that is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 228, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that convictions used to enhance a sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) need not be set forth in the indictment. Accordingly, the government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, its alternative motion for an extension of time to file its brief is DENIED as unnecessary, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.