alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Don/McC Cook/SOLO Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jeffrey STIEVE, Medical Director, Corrrect Care Solutions; Arkansas State Prison; Aric Simmons, APN, Practitioner, Correct Care Solution; Brett Butler, Medical Doctor, Correct Care Solution, a Tennessee Corporation Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-3802

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 8, 2017

Filed: November 14, 2017

Don/McC Cook/Solo, Pro Se

*534Brent J. Eubanks, Humphries & Odum, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas prisoner Don/McC Cook/Solo (Solo) appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Jeffrey Stieve in this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful de novo review, see United States v. Dico, Inc., 808 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2015), we conclude that Solo demonstrated neither deliberate indifference nor unconstitutional retaliation by Dr. Stieve. See Meuir v. Greene Cty. Jail Emps., 487 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2007) (prison physicians are free to exercise independent medical judgment); Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (prison officials do not violate Eighth Amendment when, in exercising professional judgment, they refuse to implement inmate’s requested course of treatment). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 64

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the Commonwealth of the Philippines was strategically located and thus vital to the defense of the United

States during World War II;

Whereas the military forces of the Commonwealth of the

Philippines were called into the United States Armed

Forces during World War II by Executive order and were

put under the command of General Douglas MacArthur;

Whereas the participation of the military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in the battles of Bataan

and Corregidor and in other smaller skirmishes delayed

and disrupted the initial Japanese effort to conquer the

Western Pacific;

Whereas that delay and disruption allowed the United States

the vital time to prepare the forces which were needed to

drive the Japanese from the Western Pacific and to defeat Japan;

Whereas after the recovery of the Philippine Islands from

Japan, the United States was able to use the strategically

located Commonwealth of the Philippines as a base from

which to launch the final efforts to defeat Japan;

Whereas every American deserves to know the important contribution that the military forces of the Commonwealth of
2

SCON 64 ES

the Philippines made to the outcome of World War II;

and

Whereas the Filipino World War II veterans deserve recognition and honor for their important contribution to the

outcome of World War II: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 President should issue a proclamation which recognizes

4 and honors the Filipino World War II veterans for their

5 defense of democratic ideals and their important contribu6 tion to the outcome of World War II.

Passed the Senate July 17, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 64

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To recognize and honor the Filipino World War II

of World War II.and their important contribution to the outcomeveterans for their defense of democratic ideals
# EUR-Lex - 32002R0894 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002R0894

**Regulation (EC) No 894/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 May 2002 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports **

*
Official Journal L 142 , 31/05/2002 P. 0003 - 0003 *

Regulation (EC) No 894/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 27 May 2002

amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(2),

Following consultation of the Committee of the Regions,

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(3),

Whereas:

(1) The terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States and the political developments that followed those events seriously affected the air transport operations of air carriers and resulted in a significant drop in demand during the remainder of the summer 2001 and winter 2001/2002 scheduling seasons.

(2) In order to make sure that the non-utilisation of slots allocated for those seasons does not cause operators to lose their entitlement to those slots, it appears necessary to provide clearly and unambiguously that those scheduling seasons were adversely affected by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports(4) should therefore be accordingly amended,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following Article shall be inserted in Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93: "Article 10a

The events of 11 September 2001

For the purposes of Article 10(3), coordinators shall accept that air carriers are entitled to the same series of slots during summer scheduling season 2002 and winter scheduling season 2002/2003 as had been allocated to them on the date of 11 September 2001 for the summer scheduling season 2001 and the winter scheduling season 2001/2002 respectively."

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 27 May 2002.

For the European Parliament

The President

P. Cox

For the Council

The President

M. Arias Cañete

(1) OJ C 103 E, 30.4.2002, p. 350.

(2) Opinion delivered on 20 March 2002 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) Opinion of the European Parliament of 6 February 2002 (not yet published in the Official Journal), Council Common Position of 25 March 2002 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Decision of the European Parliament of 15 May 2002.

(4) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1846 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 49 ) ll-F- 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-07

Printed 11/18/20087:30:16

AM Sheet 49of 93P. 2

JHH-03- 4 .39 2 04:5 7 FRO M OM S 2N D FLOO R H 

# Q v.t T O

USDeporrmen r o f Transportatio n Konona i railway woffl e Safet y AdmfnWrofio n 40 0 Savonl h Street . S.W . Washington , D. C 2059 0 

## U K.13 199 1

Richard D . Wilson , Director Offic e o f Mobil e Source s u . s . Environmenta l Protectio n Agono y Washington , D C 204& 0 C 

## B 2 5I9 S !l£ |

Dea r Mr . Wilson : Th e Nationa l Highwa y Traffi c Safety

Administrationha s reviewed the draf t Notic e o f Proposed Rulemakin g titled , "Fue l an d Fue l Additive Registration Regulations. " Th e agency ha c n o comment s o n thi s propose d rule . Sincerely ,
Barr y FjfLric e 

### Associat e Administrato r fo r Rulemakin g

n ftf ***r\ / «C I •* * CAW C I IWCT » AUT O SAFET Y HOTLIN E (ROT ) 4?«-<»39f t Wee h nr . Aro»«A_fl10 *
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Alfonso DOMINGUEZ-PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-40475 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 10, 2017

Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jesus Alfonso Dominguez-Portillo, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jesus Dominguez-Portillo appeals the eighteen-month sentence for having been found unlawfully in the United States following removal. He contends that his sentence above the advisory guideline range of zero to six months was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

Dominguez-Portillo maintains that the district court erred procedurally by failing *370adequately to explain the extent of the upward variance. To the contrary, however, the court relied on proper factors and provided a sufficient explanation. *See United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 707-08 (5th Cir. 2006). In stating its reasons for a non-guideline sentence, the court considered Dominguez-Portillo’s history and characteristics, and it noted the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment, to afford adequate deterrence, and to protect the public.

Dominguez-Portillo claims that the sentence was substantively unreasonable given the above-noted, alleged procedural errors and because the district court gave undue weight to his “extremely limited” criminal history and failed to give appropriate weight to the applicable guideline range. There is no indication, however, that the court failed to account for a factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to any improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in balancing the relevant factors. *See id.*at 708. Further, the court tied the above-noted reasons to specific facts and particular 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors sufficient to justify the variance. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 49-53, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Although the variance was significant, it was not substantively unreasonable. *See, e.g., United States v. McElwee,*646 F.3d 328, 344-45 (5th Cir. 2011); *United States v. Saldana,*427 F.3d 298, 315-16 (5th Cir. 2005).

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.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05261]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: March 16, 2022; 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by video-conference only.

STATUS: Part of the meeting will be open to the public and available to 
view, streamed live, accessible from www.fmc.gov. The rest of the 
meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
Portions Open to the Public:
1. Commissioner Sola, Update on Fact Finding 30: COVID-19 Impact on 
Cruise Industry
2. Staff Briefing on Ongoing Enforcement Activities
Portions Closed to the Public:
1. Staff Briefing on Ongoing Enforcement Activities
2. Area Representative Regional Activity Updates

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: William Cody, Secretary, (202) 
523-5725.

William Cody,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05261 Filed 3-9-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
# EUR-Lex - 32003R0322 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003R0322

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 322/2003 of 20 February 2003 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 047 , 21/02/2003 P. 0010 - 0011 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 322/2003

of 20 February 2003

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 February 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 February 2003.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 20 February 2003 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

>TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                             Exhibit 10.6(c)(ii)

                      AMENDMENT #1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This Amendment #1 to the Employment Agreement between Applied Graphics
Technologies, Inc. (AGT) and Martin Krall, effective as of January 31, 2003
("Employment Agreement") is effective as of May 8, 2003.

      Whereas, the parties have determined that the amount of time that Employee
has been required to devote to his duties at AGT has materially increased since
January 31, 2003. Therefore, it is hereby agreed that:

      1. Paragraph 2 a of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted and the
following paragraph substituted therefor

      AGT will pay Employee a salary at the rate of Four Hundred and Fifty
      Thousand Dollars ($450,000) per annum ("Base Salary"). The Base Salary
      will be reviewed annually and may, in the sole discretion of the Board of
      Directors, be increased but may not be reduced.

      2. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date
shown below.


MARTIN KRALL                        APPLIED GRAPHICS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By: _____________________________   By: ________________________________
Dated: __________________________   Title: _____________________________
                                    Dated: _____________________________
May 22, 2015

Mr. Donald Vivier 1871 Marquette Avenue

Orlando, FL 32826

Dear Mr. Donald Vivier:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 13, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0982), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF NETLOJIX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,218
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,977
<PP&E>                                             991
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,217
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,746
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,304
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,679
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,511)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,511)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,511)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)


</TABLE>
Page 1 / 8 

# Modification Information Document Modification Information Sheet

The information contained in this document is valid at the time ofprinting and is subject to change without prior notice. In case of discrepancy between the content of this document and any contractual document, the latter shall prevail.

Issue DatePrinted in France ' AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1999 26 27 28 22 15 16A 17 16
14A 33 32 34 39 38 39 36 37 19 18

14 13 12 11 51 23 42

52 41 24 21 29 25 28 Section concerned : Table of contents Modification No. Proposal No. Service Bulletin No. TFU No.

Life/Time/Limits Interchangeability Maintenance Spares Operations Weight Title of modification Origin/reason Associated modifications Localization of repercussions Classification ATA Chap. Affect.

TRS Issue Repercussions on In case of YES , see page 3 for details

Standard Specification For details see relevant MSCN/SCN Modification Information Sheet Technical Information Sheet Sketch(es) Repercussion Sheet Page 32025 J2211 57-1118 57-26.13.001 Wings - Main structure - Change gear rib busher rib 5 To facilitate maintenance Minor 57-11
No Yes Yes No No No

/ L1J 1 29 Apr 2002 No 1 2 3 -7 8

22Modification No. Proposal No. Title of modification J2211 32025 Wings - Main structure - Change gear rib busher rib 5 

# Technical Information Sheet

' AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1999 Page 2 / 8

General description In order to facilitate removal and reinstallation of the MLG aft pintle pin, the modification consists in making the following changes to the bushes in the gear rib lugs: - new bushes are introduced with an increased interference fit - concentricity limits are decreased - the sealant type is changed, and - corrosion protection is added by alo-chrome brushing the hole.

Type A318-100/A319-100/A320-200/A321-200Modification No. Proposal No. 32025 J2211 

# Sketch

Page 3 / 8 ' AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1999 

### Sketch 1:Modification No. Proposal No. 32025 J2211 

# Sketch

Page 4 / 8 ' AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1999 

### Sketch 2:Modification No. Proposal No. 32025 J2211 

# Sketch

Page 5 / 8 ' AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1999 

### Sketch 3:Modification No. Proposal No. 32025 J2211 

# Sketch

Page 6 / 8 ' AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1999 

### Sketch 4:Modification No. Proposal No. 32025 J2211 

# Sketch

Page 7 / 8 ' AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1999 

### Sketch 5:Modification No. Proposal No. Title of modification 32025 J2211 Wings - Main structure - Change gear rib busher rib 5 

# Repercussion Sheet

Page 8 / 8 ' AIRBUS INDUSTRIE 1999 Weight Operations No Maintenance Changes in the SRM chapter 57-26.13. Spares Changes in the IPC. Interchangeability No Life/Time/Limits No Aircraft Type Weight MWE OWE All Neg Neg
#### Kamlesh BANGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-17147

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 25, 2017

Kamlesh Banga, Pro Se

Gayle Marsha Athanacio, Esquire, Attorney, Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Banga’s request for oral argument, set forth in her opening and reply briefs, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Kamlesh Banga appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging, among other things, violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Banga has waived her appeal of the dismissal of her UCL claim, because she did not object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to construe her UCL claim narrowly, and affirmatively request ed, in her opposition to Allstate Insurance Company’s objections to the magistrate’s findings and recommendation, that the district court adopt the recommendation without any qualification or reservation. *See Loher v. Thomas,*825 F.3d 1103, 1121 (9th Cir. 2016) (setting forth the standard for finding a waiver of the right to review on appeal and finding that a party’s failure to object to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation and its affirmative invitation to adopt the recommendation constituted a waiver of an issue on appeal).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Banga’s request made in the Fourth Amended Complaint that she be permitted to proceed on the UCL claim based on the unfair and fraudulent prongs because the entire UCL claim had already been dismissed and Banga failed to provide any explanation for why leave to amend should have been granted. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); *Westlands Water Dist. v. Firebaugh Canal,*10 F.3d 667, 677 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where appellants gave no indication *877of a desire to seek leave to amend until after the district court rendered its decision dismissing the claim).

AFFIRMED.

**

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