alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 27, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11273

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-00176-CR-WS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES HAROLD BURKE, JR.,

a.k.a. Short Man,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(October 27, 2009)

Before BLACK, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kristen Gartman Rogers, appointed counsel for James Harold Burke, Jr., has
filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no issues of arguable merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Burke’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. 99-21053 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL., JACK J. GRYNBERG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GPM GAS CORPORATION; PHILLIPS PIPELINE CO.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-2484

- - - - - - - - - - November 9, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jack J. Grynberg, relator, appeals from the district

court’s dismissal of his qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act

(“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq

. Grynberg sued the defendant

companies on behalf of the Government, seeking to recover a portion

of natural gas royalties owed t he Government, based on the

defendants’ having allegedly mismeasured and falsely reported the

volume and heating content of gas they produced on Indian lands.

The district court dismissed the action pursuant to United States

ex rel. Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital , 982 F. Supp. 1261No. 99-21053 -2-

(S.D. Tex. 1997) (“ Riley I ”), indicating that Grynberg lacked

standing under Article III of the Constitution to bring a lawsuit

on behalf of the Government.

Both the relator and the defendants now acknowledge that

both the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc have

since recognized that a private citizen has standing to file an FCA

complaint under the FCA’s qui tamprovisions. See Vermont Agency

of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens
, 529 U.S.

765, 778 (2000); Riley v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp. , 252 F.3d 749,

752 (5th Cir. 2001) (“ Riley III ”). Moreover, the defendants admit

that Rile y III forecloses their contentions that the FCA’s

qui tamprovisions violate the Take Care and Appointments Clauses

of Article II of the Constitution. S ee Riley III , 252 F.3d at 758.

Accordingly, the decision of the district court is

REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the district court for

further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26100-26101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10560]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8312]

Advisory Committee on the Secretary of State's Strategic Dialogue 
With Civil Society; Notice of the Renewal of an Advisory Committee

    This is notice of the renewal of the Advisory Committee on the 
Secretary of State's Strategic Dialogue with Civil Society (hereinafter 
``the Committee''). The Committee provides advice and assistance in the 
formulation of U.S. policies, proposals, and strategies for engagement 
with, and protection of, civil society worldwide. Functions of the 
Committee include, but are not limited to: (a) Providing information 
and advice on the effective integration of civil society into overall 
foreign policy; and (b) providing information and advice on the 
Department of State's role in advancing, promoting, and protecting 
freedom of association and expression. The objective of the Committee 
is to bring to the United States government a source of expertise, 
knowledge, and insight not available within the Department or elsewhere 
in the government on these issues. The Committee serves in a solely 
advisory capacity.

[[Page 26101]]

    The membership of the Committee consists of representatives who are 
leaders of U.S. and foreign civil society and U.S. and foreign 
businesses engaged with civil society. They may include: leaders of 
independent public policy advocacy organizations, non-profit 
organizations that defend human rights and promote democracy, 
humanitarian organizations, private foundations and funds, charitable 
trusts, societies, associations and non-profit corporations. The 
Department affirms that this advisory committee is necessary and in the 
public interest.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Senior 
Advisor for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies, U.S. Department of 
State, at civilsociety@state.gov.

    Dated: April 29, 2013.
Tomicah S. Tillemann,
Senior Advisor for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies, U.S. 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2013-10560 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
No. 09-9714.

#### Christopher Leon Coney, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 949, 131 S. Ct. 70,

178 L. Ed. 2d 246,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7731.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 349 Fed. Appx. 497.
No. 10-5707.

#### Maqsood Ahamad, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 935, 131 S. Ct. 343,

178 L. Ed. 2d 219,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7647.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.

*220Same case below, 37 So. 3d 869.
# C_2014085EN.01001401.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 17 December 2013 — OTP Bank Nyrt. v Magyar Állam and Magyar Államkincstár

(Case C-672/13)

2014/C 85/25

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OTP Bank Nyrt.

Applicant:

Defendants: Magyar Állam and Magyar Államkincstár

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a State guarantee granted under Government Decree 12/2001 of 31 January 2001 and undertaken before the accession of Hungary to the European Union constitute State aid and, if so, is it compatible with the internal market? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a State guarantee granted under Government Decree 12/2001 of 31 January 2001 and undertaken before the accession of Hungary to the European Union constitute State aid and, if so, is it compatible with the internal market?

| 2. | If the State guarantee granted by that Decree is incompatible with the internal market, what remedies are available under Community law for any damage to the interests of the persons concerned? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the State guarantee granted by that Decree is incompatible with the internal market, what remedies are available under Community law for any damage to the interests of the persons concerned?

---
No. 10-5887.

#### Michael Pericles, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 940, 131 S. Ct. 356,

178 L. Ed. 2d 230,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7305.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 801.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Jeffrey A. Weiss, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dollar Financial Group, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material 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 withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:September 20, 2005     /s/ *Jeffrey A. Weiss*     Jeffrey A. Weiss  Chief Executive Officer
91
No. 09-11085.

#### Jesil Abraham Wilson, Petitioner v. Oklahoma, et al.

562 U.S. 861, 131 S. Ct. 138,

178 L. Ed. 2d 84,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5946.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 595.
# 2024 DLA Hall of Fame inductee: Kenneth Winslette

/ Published May 15, 2024
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
*Editor’s Note: This is one of five stories featuring 2024**DLA Hall of Fame**inductees. An induction ceremony will be held 2 p.m. May 21 at the McNamara Headquarters Complex auditorium on Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The ceremony is open to all DLA employees; invitations are not needed.*

Over the last 40-years, America’s warfighter approach to mission success via readiness has drastically changed to meet the demands of complex deployment settings. To keep pace, the Defense Logistics Agency leverages the experience and innovation of leaders like Kenneth Winslette, a 2024 DLA Hall of Fame member and legendary contractor according to his peers.

From 2008 to 2013, Winslette served as DLA’s director of procurement operations for depot-level reparable at Warner Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, and director of Strategic Acquisitions Programs for DLA Aviation at Richmond, Virginia. In these roles, he oversaw contracts for supplies and services worth over $12.5 billion.

Winslette contributed to DLA’s implementation of Base Realignment and Closure decisions of 2005, which realigned service managed DLR sites under DLA. He led his team and service customers through the change, setting new standards for how the agency supports the military’s evolving needs.

His innovative approach to daily operational support led to the development of a workload management tool for tracking Army depot-level reparables through the acquisition process. The tool helps reduce the administrative lead time for purchase requests.

Winslette’s other innovations include the development of unique strategic contracts such as the Third Party Logistics Support Contract that streamlines the acquisition of repetitive buys for similar items and a corporate contract that provides nine years of contract coverage for spares and repair parts.

Through coaching and mentoring, Winslette helped develop DLA’s future leaders, some of whom are now members of the senior executive service. He encouraged others to participate in rotational assignments and development opportunities to strengthen their acquisition and leadership skills. And by creating new contracting methods, he helped his team deepen technical knowledge and critical thinking.

Winslette’s career culminated at DLA Aviation Huntsville, Alabama, where he served as deputy director and chief of the Missile Division.

“Regardless of whether Mr. Winslette was in a chief, director or deputy commander position, the success of his organization rested on his unique ability to gather the right people at the table to develop successful solutions” the nomination says.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16103]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


University of California, Berkeley; Notice of Decision on 
Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 98-021. Applicant: University of California, 
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720. Instrument: Electron Neutralizer. 
Manufacturer: Gammadata-Scienta, Sweden. Intended Use: See notice at 63 
FR 20612, April 27, 1998.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: This is a compatible accessory for an existing 
instrument purchased for the use of the applicant.
    The accessory is pertinent to the intended uses and we know of no 
comparable domestic accessory which can be readily adapted to the 
existing instrument.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 98-16103 Filed 6-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michelle Johnson, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 286]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J. at plea; Roger Hayes, J. at sentencing), rendered July 9, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had *583thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Richter, Fein-man, Webber and Kahn, JJ.
No. 10-197.

#### Christa Bauer, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 897, 131 S. Ct. 347,

178 L. Ed. 2d 148,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6185,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 38.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Devineil Brown, Appellant.

[49 NYS3d 629]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County *769(Del Giudice, J.), rendered July 31, 2014, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel declined to object to annotations to the verdict sheet is without merit (see CPL 310.20 [2]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]; *People v Bruce,*130 AD3d 938 [2015]; *People v Reyes,*49 AD3d 565, 567 [2008]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5508.

#### Tony Ramon Wilis, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 926, 131 S. Ct. 311,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7415.

178 L. Ed. 2d 202,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2469

To amend title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to provide for the

economic and environmentally acceptable disposal of low-level radioactive

waste and mixed waste resulting from the operation of gaseous diffusion

plants at Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mr. FORD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to

provide for the economic and environmentally acceptable

disposal of low-level radioactive waste and mixed waste

resulting from the operation of gaseous diffusion plants

at Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio, and for other

purposes.

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

3 That title XI of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is amended

4 by adding after section 1103 the following new section:
2

S 2469 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 1104. LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MIXED

2 WASTE.

3 ‘‘Title II of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as added

4 by title IX of this Act, is further amended as follows:

5 ‘‘(a) In section 1201 by inserting the following

6 new paragraphs and renumbering existing para7 graphs accordingly:

8 ‘‘ ‘(10) The term ‘‘low-level radioactive waste’’

9 has the meaning given such term in section 102(9)

10 of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amend11 ments Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 2021b(9)).

12 ‘‘ ‘(11) The term ‘‘mixed waste’’ has the mean13 ing given such term in section 1004(41) of the Solid

14 Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6903(41)).’

15 ‘‘(b) In section 1403 by adding at the end

16 thereof the following new subsection:

17 ‘‘ ‘(h) DOE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCEPT LOW18 LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND MIXED WASTE.—At

19 the request of the Corporation, the Department shall ac20 cept for treatment and disposal the low-level radioactive

21 waste and mixed waste generated as a result of the oper22 ation of the facilities and related property leased by the

23 Corporation pursuant to subsection (a). The increase in

24 costs of treatment and disposal actually incurred by the

25 Department which are solely attributable to and result

26 from the treatment and disposal of such wastes received
3

S 2469 IS

1 from the Corporation shall be reimbursed to the Depart2 ment by the Corporation. At its sole discretion, the Cor3 poration may, but is not required to, arrange for the treat4 ment or disposal of such wastes or any portion thereof

5 at any other facility otherwise authorized by applicable

6 laws and regulations to treat or dispose of such wastes.

7 The costs of treatment and disposal of such wastes at any

8 other facility shall be borne solely by the Corporation.’.’’.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2468

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1994

Referred to the Committee on Agriculture

AN ACT

To permit the Secretary of Agriculture to make available

certain amounts for FmHA farm ownership, operating,

or emergency loans, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS FOR FMHA FARM

4 OWNERSHIP, OPERATING, OR EMERGENCY

5 LOANS.

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec7 retary of Agriculture—

8 (1) from the date of enactment of this Act until

9 September 30, 1994, may transfer funds so as to

10 make available—
2

S 2468 RFH

1 (A) the amounts that would otherwise be

2 available for gross obligations for the principal

3 amount of direct farm ownership or emergency

4 loans as authorized by sections 308 and 309 of

5 the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

6 Act (7 U.S.C. 1928 and 1929); and

7 (B) the amounts that would otherwise be

8 available for the costs of such direct farm own9 ership or emergency loans (including the cost of

10 modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of

11 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2

12 U.S.C. 661a));

13 for any gross obligations or costs of farm ownership,

14 operating, or emergency loans or credit sales, except

15 that the amounts that would otherwise be available

16 for such costs of such emergency loans may be ex17 pended only for such costs of guaranteed subsidized

18 operating loans or credit sales; and

19 (2) after September 30, 1994, may not expend

20 funds, or disburse any new loans, made available by

21 a transfer described in paragraph (1) for fiscal year

22 1994.

Passed the Senate September 27 (legislative day,

September 12), 1994.

Attest: MARTHA S. POPE,

Secretary.
2016-1750.

#### State v. Anderson.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-924, 2016-Ohio-7269.