alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
John A. FORD, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7958.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

*2796Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
연구에서 긴급사용승인까지의 코비드-19 

(COVID-19) 백신의 경로 미식품의약국

백신 정보

www.FDA.gov/COVID19vaccines

#FDAVaccineFacts

1 미식품의약국의 코비드-19 백신에

대한 긴급사용승인 신청 평가의

일부는 화학, 제조, 그리고 백신

관련 정보 관리를 포함합니다.

백신의 품질과 일관성을 보장하는

충분한 자료가 제출되어야 합니다.

미식품의약국은 현재 제품 제조

과정의 규칙 준수 여부를 평가하기

위하여 기록 검토, 현장 방문, 그리고

이전의 규칙 준수 기록을 포함한

모든 가능한 도구와 정보를 사용할

것입니다.

2 미식품의약국은 코비드-19 를

예방하기 위한 백신 관련

긴급사용승인 신청 2020 년 10 월

지침서에 다음을 명확하게

명시하였습니다 – 코비드-19 백신은

품질과 일관성을 보장할 수 있는

타당한 제조 정보가 있어여 하며

긴급사용승인 허락은 알려진 백신의

이점이 위험보다 높아야 하는데 이

것은 잘 계획된 제 3 단게 임상 시험

결과에 의해 안전성과 효과성이

명확하고 설득력 있게 입증되어야

합니다.

백신 제조사들은 백신 후보를 개발하기

위하여 실험실 연구를 진행합니다. .

제조사는 백신에 대한 실험실 연구, 

동물 시험, 그리고 제조 기술 및

품질에 관한 결과를 취합하여 연구성

신약 (IND) 신청을 인간 임상 시험

시작전 미식품의약국에 제출해야

합니다. 그런 인간에 대한 임상

시험은 사전에 미식품의약국의 서면

승인 없이는 허용되지 않습니다. 

백신의 안전성과 효과성에 대한 자료를

얻기 위하여 임상 시험이 진행됩니다.

자료 안전성 감시 위원회는 3 단계

임상 시험의 자료를 평가하여

미식품의약국과 미리 논의하고

동의한 선 지정된 임상 끝단계 기준에

코비드-19 백신이 부합한지

회사는 자료를 검토하여 회사의 제조사에게 알립니다.

과학자들과 기술 전문가들이 백신이

미식품의약국 안전성과 효과성 기준에

부합하는 것으로 보는지 가리게 됩니다. 

미식품의약국의 권고를

고려하여 회사는 긴급사용승인

신청 여부와 시기를 결정합니다.

일단 제출되면 미식품의약국 생물학적

평가 및 연구 센터 (CBER)에서 일하는

과학자들이 미식품의약국에 제출된

백신 관련 과학적 증거 전체를

고려하여 긴급사용승인 심사를

진행하게 됩니다.

1

미식품의약국은 임상 시험 결과

자료를 논의하기 위하여 백신 및

관련 생물학적 제품 권고 위원회의

공공 모임을 소집합니다. 

권고 위원회의 모임 후 생물학적 평가

및 연구 센터에서 일하는 전문가들은

권고 위원회의 권고 사항을 고려하여

현재의 안전성, 효과성, 제조 관련

자료들이 특정 코비드-19 백신의 미국

내 사용을 지지해 주는지 결정하게

됩니다. 

미 식품의약국은 백신의 알려진

잠재적 이점이 알려진 잠재적

위험보다 높은 점과 제조 정보가

품질과 일관성을 보장할 수 있는 점

등을 포함하여 긴급사용승인 기준에

맞다고 결정하면 백신의 긴급 사용을

허락할 수 있습니다.

2 

미식품의약국은 긴급사용승인이

허락되었다고 회사에 알립니다.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60194

Summary Calendar

TERRY W. STEWART,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

MARCUS MARTIN, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 5:13-CV-4

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

TerryW.Stewart,federal prisoner # 17057-075, appeals the district court’s

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his 2001 conviction in the

Western District of North Carolina on multiple counts of conspiracy, mail fraud,

wire fraud, and money laundering. In his petition, Stewart alleged that the trial

court violated his Sixth Amendment rights when it quashed his subpoena of

codefendant Phillip Vaughan and denied his request to introduce Vaughan’s

hearsay statements at trial. According to Stewart, his claims were properly

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 13-60194 Document: 00512400375 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2013
No. 13-60194

brought under § 2241 via the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he was

asserting a claim of actual innocence.

A federal prisoner can proceed via § 2241 only if he shows that relief under

§ 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, which in turn requires him to demonstrate

under the savings clause that his claim (i) is based on a retroactively applicable

Supreme Court decision which established that he may have been convicted of

a nonexistent offense and (ii) was foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the

claim should have been raised in his trial, direct appeal, or first § 2255 motion. 

Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Stewart has

failed to make the requisite showing. He has also not shown that his claim of

actual innocence provides an exception to the requirement that a petitioner first

satisfy the savings clause of § 2255 in order to challenge his conviction and

sentence in a § 2241 petition. Therefore, the district court did not err in

concluding that Stewart could not bring his claims in a § 2241 petition. See

Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830-31 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court also

did not err in concluding that, to the extent Stewart’s petition could be construed

as a § 2255 motion, the court lacked jurisdiction. See § 2255(a); Solsona v.

Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the district

court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-60194 Document: 00512400375 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0042 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOHNATHAN ALBERT BERTSCH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Julie Pesanti DeLong is granted an extension of time to and including May 24, 202 2 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 25 2022

04/25/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0042
Need Assistance in “Federalizing” Your Resume?

Individuals interested in applying to open Food and Drug Administration’s 

Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) positions now have the opportunity to

work with a Certified Federal Career Coach to “federalize” their resume for 

USAJOBS. The CTP Corporate Recruitment Team offers free 1‐hour 

career coaching sessions via teleconference in which they provide 

feedback to candidates on how to best align their resume with their desired 

position of interest. Availability is first come, first served. 

Interested individuals must email the below required items to 

ctpcareercoach@fda.hhs.gov

1) A current resume

2) The link to the USAJOBS announcement

Please allow at least 24 hours to schedule a session.
ADKINS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., petitioners, v. O STREET MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.

No. 12-1283.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.
Corey THOMAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9044.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Virginia BADEN and Joanna Baden, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Christopher BADEN, o/b/o Palma Sola Development, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1647

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER DENYING PRO 

HAC VICE APPLICATION

The pro hac vice application of Attorney Shawn Rabin (Dkt. No. 1183) is DENIED for

failing to comply with Local Rule 11-3. That rule requires an applicant to certify that “he or

she is an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest

court of another State or the District of Columbia, specifying such bar” (emphasis added). 

Filling out the pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it identifies only the

state of bar membership — e.g., “the bar of New York” — is inadequate under the rule because

it fails to identify a specific court. While the application fee does not need to be paid again, the

application cannot be processed until a corrected form is submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1190 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BILL ALLEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00147-D-1)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer 

P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United

States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bill Allen pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to 

two counts of arson within the special maritime and territorial 

jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 7(3), 81 (2012). The district court sentenced Allen to 

concurrent terms of thirty months’ imprisonment, the bottom of 

the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Allen timely appeals, 

arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable, because 

it is greater than necessary to satisfy the purposes of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012). 

We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness, 

using “a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Because Allen asserts no 

procedural error, we consider whether the sentence is 

substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into account the totality of 

the circumstances” and giving due deference to the district 

court’s decision. Id. We presume that a sentence “within or 

below a properly calculated Guidelines range is [substantively] 

reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). Allen bears the 

burden to rebut this presumption “by showing that the sentence 

is unreasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” 

Id.
3

Here, the district court reasonably determined that a 

sentence of thirty months, at the low end of the Guidelines 

range, was appropriate based on its individualized assessment of 

Allen’s case in light of his arguments and the § 3553(a) 

factors. Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing 

the chosen sentence. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

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
Melissa Diane CONNATSER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. MERCURY INSURANCE CO. OF FLA, as Subrogee of Richard Reeder, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-1817

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 10, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Krupp Realty
Fund 4 Financial Statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         716,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,817<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               798,038
<PP&E>                                      35,724,320<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                            (24,665,906)<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,585,758
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,088,802
<BONDS>                                     16,615,351<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   (5,118,395)<F5>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,585,758
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,269,377<F6>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,926,633<F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,042,128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  3,040<F8>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   297,576<F9>
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F9>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F9>
<FN>
<F1>Includes all receivables grouped in "prepaid expenses and other assets"
the Balance Sheet.
<F2>Multi-family complexes of $35,376,721 and deferred expenses of $347,599.
<F3>Accumulated depreciation of $24,390,940 and accumulated amortization of
deferred expenses of $274,966.
<F4>Represents mortgage notes payable.
<F5>Represents total deficit of the General Partners and Limited Partners of
($309,736) and ($4,808,659), respectively.
<F6>Includes all revenue of the Partnership.
<F7>Includes operating expenses of $2,215,444, real estate taxes of $535,865
and depreciation and amortization of $1,175,324.
<F8>Includes minority interest of ($3,040).
<F9>Net income allocated $2,976 to the General Partners and $294,600 to the
Limited Partners.  Average net income per Unit of Limited Partners
interest is $9.42 on 30,000 Units outstanding.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10561]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP93-49-000]


Paiute Pipeline Company; Notice of Settlement Conference

April 25, 1995.
    Pursuant to the Commission order which issued on January 19, 1993, 
and a notice of extension of time which issued on May 13, 1993, a 
settlement conference will be held to resolve the issues raised in the 
above-captioned proceeding.
    The conference will be held on Tuesday, May 9, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., 
in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10561 Filed 4-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NEENAH FOUNDRY COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE
YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,478
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,874
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,001
<INVENTORY>                                     65,119
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,516
<PP&E>                                         295,562
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 666,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,436
<BONDS>                                        438,327
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              100
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,418
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   666,218
<SALES>                                        549,656
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               549,656
<CGS>                                          454,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  454,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (48,760)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,860)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,448
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,308)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     165
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,143)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Subramanian Sundaresh, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarter ended July 3, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q"), that the
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the quarterly periods covered by the Form 10-Q.

|Date: August 5, 2009 | By: /s/ SUBRAMANIAN SUNDARESH
                Subramanian SundareshChief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, Mary L. Dotz, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Form 10-Q, that the Form 10-Q
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.

|Date: August 5, 2009 | By: /s/ MARY L. DOTZ
                Mary L. DotzChief Financial Officer
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
最佳選食 良好選食

鯷魚 

大西洋黃魚 

大西洋鯖魚 

黑海鱸 

鯧魚 

鯰魚

蛤蜊

鱈魚

螃蟹

淡水龍蝦 

龍利魚

黑線鱈

無須鱈

鯡魚

美洲和多刺龍蝦

鯔魚 

牡蠣

太平洋白腹鯖

淡水和大洋鱸 

梭子魚

歐鰈

狹鱈

三文魚

沙丁魚

扇貝

河鯡

蝦

鰩魚

胡瓜魚

舌鰨魚

魷魚

羅非魚

淡水鱒魚

罐裝淡金槍魚

(包括鰹魚)

白鮭

牙鱈

扁鯵 

牛魚

鯉魚

智利海鱸魚/南極

鱈魚

石斑魚

大比目魚

海豚魚/鯕鰍魚

安康魚

岩魚 

銀鱈

羊頭魚

鯛魚

西班牙鯖魚 

銀花鱸魚(深海)

方頭魚(大西洋)

長鰭/白色金槍魚

(罐裝和新鮮/冷凍)

黃鰭金槍魚 

犬牙石首魚/海鱒 

白花魚/太平洋黃花魚

避免選食汞含量最高的魚類

大耳馬鮫 

馬林魚

鯊魚

 劍魚

紐西蘭紅魚

方頭魚(墨西哥灣)

大目金槍魚 

若您食用家人或朋友捕獲的魚,請查看魚類和貝類建議,以瞭解您可以安全食用這些魚類的頻率。若未查詢到建議,則在一週內

僅食一份量的魚,避免再吃其他的魚類。由於其汞或其他污染物質的含量,由家人和朋友捕獲的部分魚類(如大鯉魚、鯰魚、鱒魚

和鱸魚)更可能有魚類公告。

最佳選食

良好選食

避免選食

選擇各種含汞量較低的魚。

雖然限制孕婦和哺乳期婦女以及幼兒攝取汞的含量非常重要,但有許多種類的魚不但富含營養同

時汞含量也較低。

魚類‡ 可提供支援兒童大腦發育的關鍵營養素。

吃魚的建議

對於孕期或備孕、哺乳期婦女以及 1 至 11 歲幼兒

‡ 本建議將魚類和貝類統稱為「魚」/本建議於 2021 年 10 月修訂*

兒童:

平均一份大約是:

1 盎司(1 至 3 歲)

2 盎司(4 至 7 歲)

3 盎司(8 至 10 歲)

4 盎司(11 歲)

每週從「最佳選食」列表中選擇 2 份。

一份量是多少?可以用您的手掌來衡量。

孕婦和哺乳期婦女:

1 份是 4 盎司

每週從「最佳選食」列表中選擇 2 到 3 份

(或是從「良好選食」列表中選擇 1 份)。

此圖表有助於您參照汞含量選擇食用魚肉的類型及數量。

魚是健康飲食模式的一部分,能為孕婦和哺乳期婦女和/或幼兒提供關鍵營養素,

支援兒童的大腦發育:

• Ω-3 脂肪酸(稱為 DHA 和 EPA)和 ω-6 脂肪酸

• 鐵

• 碘(懷孕期間)

• 膽鹼

膽鹼還能支持嬰兒脊髓的發育。魚類富含鐵和鋅,能支援兒童的免疫系統。魚也是

其他營養物質的來源,如蛋白質、維生素 B12、維生素 D 和硒。

www.FDA.gov/fishadvice

www.EPA.gov/fishadvice
健康的飲食模式是指基於

卡路里需求、根據推薦的食

用量攝入所有食物類別(蔬

菜、水果、穀物、乳製品和蛋

白質食物,其中便包括魚)

的食物。健康的飲食模式應

包括富含維生素、礦物質和

其他有益健康的營養成分,

並且不含或含有少量添加

糖、飽和脂肪和鈉的食物。

吃魚還可以提供其他健康益處。

促進骨骼健康——降低髖部骨折的風險*

降低超重或肥胖的風險*

降低結腸癌和直腸癌的風險*

《美國人膳食指南》建議將魚作為健康飲食模式的一部分。

《美國人膳食指南》 建議:

• 基於 2,000 卡路里的飲食標準,每週至少吃 8 盎司的海鮮

(幼兒應減量§)。

• 孕期或哺乳期婦女每週可吃 8 至 12 盎司汞含量較低的各

種海鮮。

該建議支援《美國人膳食指南》的建議,反映了當前有關改善公共健康的營養科學。《美國人膳食指南》重視關注飲食模式及食

物和營養素特徵對健康的影響。

§ 對於某些兒童,《美國人膳食指南》建議他們攝入高於此 FDA/EPA 建議含量的魚類。《美國人膳食指南》指出,為了攝入更高

含量的魚類,兒童應僅從「最佳選食」列表選擇攝入汞含量較低的魚類。——這些魚類包括鯷魚、大西洋鯖魚、鯰魚、蛤蜊、螃

蟹、淡水龍蝦、龍利魚 黑線鱈、鯔魚、牡蠣、歐鰈、狹鱈、三文魚、沙丁魚、扇貝、河鯡、蝦、舌鰨魚、魷魚、羅非魚、鱒魚、牙鱈。

* 有適度的科學證據表明 整體飲食模式與潛在的健康益處之間存在關係。

‡ 本建議將魚類和貝類統稱為「魚」/本建議於 2021 年 10 月修訂* 

 (續)

吃魚的建議

對於已孕或備孕、哺乳期婦女及 1 到 11 歲幼兒

www.FDA.gov/fishadvice	 www.EPA.gov/fishad

建議在懷孕期間攝入魚類,因為適度的科學證據表明魚類可以幫

助寶寶的認知發展。

有充足的證據表明,作為健康飲食模式的一部分,吃魚可能對心

臟健康有益。包括魚類的健康飲食模式 還可能有其他好處。 適

度的科學證據表明,魚類攝入較多並且均衡涵蓋其他食物類別(

包括蔬菜、水果、豆類、全穀物、低脂或脫脂乳製品、瘦肉和家

禽、堅果和不飽和植物油),而紅肉和加工肉類、含糖食品和飲料

以及精製穀物攝入較少的飲食習慣與以下健康益處有關:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

OTTOMOTTO LLC; and OTTO

TRUCKING LLC,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER CLARIFYING JUDGE

CORLEY’S AUTHORITY TO

SET DEPOSITIONS

In response to counsel’s failure to agree upon dates for all remaining depositions needed

in this case, a prior order dated June 23 set a schedule for twenty depositions requested by both

sides to be completed by August 10 (Dkt. No. 725). To be clear, while the parties may not

schedule depositions after the discovery cut-off, the June 23 order in no way restricts either

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley or the district court’s ability to make discovery rulings in

this case, including to order additional depositions after the discovery cut-off.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7899

JOE DAVID BARNARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BILLY JOE DURHAM,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-03-3321-6-20BI)

Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004

 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe David Barnard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joe David Barnard appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and

the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See

Barnard v. Durham, No. CA-03-3321-6-20BI (D.S.C. Nov. 24, 2003).

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.

AFFIRMED