alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William D. FOOTE and Elizabeth R. Foote, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-73728

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 3, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed November 06, 2017

Joseph E. Mudd, Freeman, Freeman & Smiley, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants

Jacob Earl Christensen, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William J. Wilkins, Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Ap-pellee

Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

We affirm the tax court’s finding that the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) did not abuse his discretion in denying the Footes’ request for abatement of interest.

In his discretion, the Commissioner may abate the interest accrued on tax deficiencies if the interest accrued as the result of an error or delay on the part of the IRS in performing a ministerial act. 26 U.S.C. § 6404(e)(1)(A).

> Ministerial act means a procedural or mechanical act that does not involve the exercise of judgment or discretion, and that occurs during the processing of a taxpayer’s case after all prerequisites to the act, such as conferences and review by supervisors, have taken place. A decision concerning the proper application of federal tax law (or other federal or state law) is not a ministerial act.

26 C.F.R. § 301.6404-2(b)(2).1 The Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in *761determining that the acts identified by the Footes do not fall within this definition.

In addition, the Commissioner cannot abate interest if the taxpayer is the cause of a significant aspect of the error or delay. 26 U.S.C. § 6404(e)(1). In their briefing, the Footes admit that “[t]he audit file lists missed appointments and suggests] a lack of cooperation in production of requested documents.” We agree. Consequently, the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in determining that the Footes caused a significant aspect of any alleged error or delay.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Two regulations apply in this case: 26 C.F.R. § 301.6404-2 applies to tax years after *7611996 and 26 C.F.R. § 301.6404-2T applies to prior tax years. However, both regulations contain essentially identical definitions of "ministerial act.” The acts identified by the Footes do not meet either definition.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Trent B. Troyer, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

      (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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Trent B. Troyer
-------------------------------------
Trent B. Troyer
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 14, 2008
#### Eugene Peter SCHULER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Director, VDOC, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6645

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 28, 2017

Decided: December 8, 2017

*204Eugene Peter Schuler, Appellant Pro Se.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eugene Peter Schuler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his second Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. We deny Schuler’s motion for a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition.

Because Schuler’s Rule 60(b) motion contains both a claim challenging the integrity of the federal habeas proceeding and a reiteration of his substantive habeas claims, it is a mixed Rule 60(b) motion/§ 2254 petition. *See United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 206-08 (4th Cir. 2003). To the extent Schuler presents a true Rule 60(b) motion, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2012); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding *true*Rule 60(b) motion is subject to certificate of appeala-bility requirement), *abrogated on other grounds by United States v. McRae,*793 F.3d 392, 399-400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015).

To the extent Schuler seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his unauthorized successive § 2254 claims, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review any such claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (2012). And construing Schuler’s notice of appeal and informal brief as a motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition, *Winestock,*340 F.3d at 208, we determine that Schuler has not shown entitlement to authorization, as his informal brief merely argues the same claims he raised in his § 2254 petition. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) (providing that any “claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed”). Accordingly, we also deny authorization to file a successive § 2254. petition.

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.

*DISMISSED*
# EUR-Lex - 32004D0061 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004D0061

**2004/61/CFSP: Council Decision 2004/61/CFSP of 26 May 2003 concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Slovak Republic on the participation of the armed forces of the Slovak Republic in the European Union-led Forces (EUF) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia **

*
Official Journal L 012 , 17/01/2004 P. 0053 - 0053 *

Council Decision 2004/61/CFSP

of 26 May 2003

concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Slovak Republic on the participation of the armed forces of the Slovak Republic in the European Union-led Forces (EUF) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 24 thereof,

Having regard to the recommendation from the Presidency,

Whereas:

(1) On 27 January 2003, the Council adopted Joint Action 2003/92/CFSP on the European Union Military Operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)(1).

(2) Article 8 of that Joint Action provides that the detailed arrangements regarding the participation of third States shall be the subject of an agreement in accordance with Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union.

(3) Following the Council Decision of 18 March 2003 authorising the Secretary General/High Representative (SG/HR) to open negotiations, the SG/HR negotiated an agreement with the Slovak Republic on the participation of the armed forces of the Slovak Republic in the European Union-led Forces (EUF) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

(4) This Agreement should be approved,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Union and the Slovak Republic on the participation of the Armed Forces of the Slovak Republic in the European Union-led Forces (EUF) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is hereby approved on behalf of the European Union.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the European Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 4

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 26 May 2003.

For the Council

The President

G. Drys

(1) OJ L 34, 12.2.2003, p. 26.
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0237 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0237

**2003/237/EC: Commission Decision of 3 April 2003 amending Decision 93/52/EEC as regards the recognition of certain Italian provinces as officially free of brucellosis (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 1083) **

*
Official Journal L 087 , 04/04/2003 P. 0013 - 0014 *

Commission Decision

of 3 April 2003

amending Decision 93/52/EEC as regards the recognition of certain Italian provinces as officially free of brucellosis

(notified under document number C(2003) 1083)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/237/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals(1), as last amended by Commission Decision 2002/261/EC(2), and in particular Annex A, Chapter 1, point II, thereto,

Whereas:

(1) In the Italian Region of Sardinia (Provinces of Cagliari, Nuoro, Sassari, and Oristano) and in the Region of Tuscany (Province of Arezzo) brucellosis has been a notifiable disease for at least five years.

(2) In the Provinces of Arezzo, Cagliari, Nuoro, Sassari, and Oristano at least 99,8 % of the ovine or caprine holdings are officially brucellosis-free holdings. These Provinces undertake, furthermore, to comply with Annex A, Chapter 1, point II(2), to Directive 91/68/EEC.

(3) The Provinces of Arezzo, Cagliari, Nuoro, Sassari, and Oristano should consequently be recognised as officially free of brucellosis (B. melitensis).

(4) Commission Decision 93/52/EEC(3), as last amended by Decision 2003/44/EC(4), should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5) 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

Annex II to Decision 93/52/EEC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 April 2003.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19.

(2) OJ L 91, 6.4.2002, p. 31.

(3) OJ L 13, 21.1.1993, p. 14.

(4) OJ L 13, 18.1.2003, p. 37.

ANNEX

"ANNEX II

In France:

Ain, Aisne, Allier, Ardèche, Ardennes, Aube, Aveyron, Cantal, Charente, Charente-Maritime, Cher, Corrèze, Côte-d'Or, Côtes-d'Armor, Creuse, Deux-Sèvres, Dordogne, Doubs, Essonne, Eure, Eure-et-Loir, Finistère, Gers, Gironde, Hauts-de-Seine, Haute-Loire, Haute-Vienne, Ille-et-Vilaine, Indre, Indre-et-Loire, Jura, Loir-et-Cher, Loire, Loire-Atlantique, Loiret, Lot-et-Garonne, Lot, Lozère, Maine-et-Loire, Manche, Marne, Mayenne, Morbihan, Nièvre, Nord, Oise, Orne, Pas-de-Calais, Puy-de-Dôme, Rhône, Haute-Saône, Saône-et-Loire, Sarthe, Seine-Maritime, Seine-Saint-Denis, Territoire de Belfort, Val-de-Marne, Val-d'Oise, Vendée, Vienne, Yonne, Yvelines, Ville de Paris, Vosges.

In Italy:

Arezzo, Bolzano, Cagliari, Nuoro, Sassari, and Oristano.

In Portugal:

Autonomous Region of Azores.

In Spain:

Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Las Palmas."
#### ULU TAAVILI, Plaintiff v. ULU IOANE and SAGALE, Defendants

No. 18-1911

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [“Matai” title: “Ulu”]

November 2, 1912

U. R. ZIVUUSHA, Asst. Paymaster, U.S.N., *Senior Member;*J. L. DWYER, *Associate Member;*and LEOSO, *Associate Member*

DECISION

This action was instituted by Taavili against Ioane and Aifano to determine the right to hold the “matai” title of Ulu of the village of Vaitogi, which was claimed by both Taavili and Ioane. Aifano died before the trial of the case and Sagale was substituted as a party defendant.

The Register of “Matais” shows that the name of Ulu Taavili was registered in 1906. Since that time, petitions have been filed requesting the registration of the names of Ulu Ioane and Ulu Siafuafu. Later Siafuafu withdrew his name and requested that Ioane be registered. The Register shows that the Secretary of Native Affairs did not comply with these requests.

From the traditional genealogy presented by Taavili, it appears that his claim is derived from the female line, extending back for many generations. There are, of course, many breaks in the line of ancestry, where strangers have held the name. It is evident, however, that Samoan custom was followed, and the descendants of strangers did not succeed to the name; but the name reverted to the true line of descent.

*264Ioane’s claim is from his father, the immediate predecessor of Ulu Taavili, but it is admitted that Ulu Ufuti, the father of Ioane, was a stranger to the name. Sagale as a distant relative of the name supported the claim of Ioane.

While Taavili has prevailed in this case, his claim that he has entire control over the disposition of the name is unfounded. The decision of this Court is that Taavili has shown a better title to the name than Ioane; but he has only the ordinary rights pertaining to the name according to the Samoan custom.

Let a decree issue vesting the title in Ulu Taavili as long as he continues to be a resident of the village of Vaitogi.

Costs are assessed at $50.00 — $25.00 to be paid by Ulu Taavili and $25.00 by Ioane and Sagale.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30545 Conference Calendar

WALTER EVANS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STATE OF LOUISIANA, Etc; ET AL, Defendants, BARRON BUILDERS & MANAGEMENT CO., Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-92

-------------------- December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Walter Evans, Jr., appeals from the district court's Rule 12(b)(5) dismissal of his suit without prejudice against Barron Builders and Management Company for ineffective service of process. We review a district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(5) for abuse of discretion. See Lindsey v. United States Railroad Retirement Board , 101 F.3d 444, 445 (5th Cir. 1996). The record fails to show that Evans effected service of processNo. 01-30545 -2- upon "an officer, a managing or general agent" or "any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). The record also fails to show that Evans complied with the state rules for service of process upon a domestic corporation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1261. Service upon an attorney representing Barron in separate state court litigation is not effective service. See Fluor Eng'r and Constructors, Inc. v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co. , 753 F.2d 444, 449 n.7 (5th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 972

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for medicaid

coverage of all certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists

services.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 27 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr.

BINGAMAN, Ms. BOXER, and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide

for medicaid coverage of all certified nurse practitioners

and clinical nurse specialists services.

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

3 SECTION 1. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF ALL CERTIFIED

4 NURSE PRACTITIONER AND CLINICAL NURSE

5 SPECIALIST SERVICES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1905(a)(21) of the Social

7 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(21)) is amended to read

8 as follows:
2

•S 972 IS

1 ‘‘(21) services furnished by a certified nurse

2 practitioner (as defined by the Secretary) or clinical

3 nurse specialist (as defined in subsection (t)) which

4 the certified nurse practitioner or clinical nurse spe5 cialist is legally authorized to perform under State

6 law (or the State regulatory mechanism provided by

7 State law), whether or not the certified nurse practi8 tioner or clinical nurse specialist is under the super9 vision of, or associated with, a physician or other

10 health care provider;’’.

11 (b) CLINICAL NURSE SPECIALIST DEFINED.—Sec12 tion 1905 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by

13 adding at the end the following new subsection:

14 ‘‘(t) The term ‘clinical nurse specialist’ means an in15 dividual who—

16 ‘‘(1) is a registered nurse and is licensed to

17 practice nursing in the State in which the clinical

18 nurse specialist services are performed; and

19 ‘‘(2) holds a master’s degree in a defined area

20 of clinical nursing from an accredited educational in21 stitution.’’.

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

23 this section shall become effective with respect to pay-
3

•S 972 IS

1 ments for calendar quarters beginning on or after January

2 1, 1996.

®
#### L. RUTHER, Appellant v. GANNETT SATELIT NETWORK, INC., Appellee

No. 17-7130

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: November 17, 2017

L. Ruther, Pro Se

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Millett, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s August 14, 2017 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant’s case without prejudice on the ground that the complaint did not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s complaint did not contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction or of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief, See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0254 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0254

**Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2003 of 11 February 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds **

*
Official Journal L 036 , 12/02/2003 P. 0007 - 0007 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2003

of 11 February 2003

amending Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) It is appropriate to ensure that the provisions established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds(1) enable all WTO-members fulfilling the requirements of the Kimberley Process certification scheme to participate in the scheme. Therefore, the definition of participant set out in Article 2 of that Regulation and the conditions governing the insertion into the list of participants contained in Annex II to that Regulation should be amended.

(2) The Community and all other participants listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 have fulfilled the requirements of the Kimberley Process certification scheme in such a manner that the full application of all provisions of that Regulation will not lead to a serious disturbance of international trade in rough diamonds.

(3) Sufficient evidence has been submitted that those requirements will be fulfilled by 1 February 2003. The suspension of the applicability of those provisions should, therefore, be lifted from that date,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 is amended as follows:

1. Article 2(c) is replaced by the following:

"(c) 'Participant' means any State, regional economic integration organisation, WTO-member or separate customs territory that fulfils the requirements of the KP certification scheme, has notified that fact to the Chair of the KP certification scheme and is listed in Annex II;"

2. Article 20 is replaced by the following:

"Article 20

On the basis of relevant Information provided to the Chair of the KP certification scheme and/or by participants, the Commission may amend the list of participants and their competent authorities."

3. Article 29(3) is replaced by the following:

"3. Articles 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18 shall apply from 1 February 2003."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 February 2003.

For the Council

The President

G. Papandreou

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 28. Regulation amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 257/2003.