alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6279

GLENN CALVIN LAWHORN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus F. W. GREENE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-471-R) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Calvin Lawhorn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Appellant’s petition is successive. Because Appellant failed to file a motion for authorization to file a successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26858-26859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12303]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL12-42-7001; FRL-5208-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 
promulgated the Chicago ozone Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) on June 
29, 1990. Included in USEPA's FIP was a requirement that staple 
manufacturing facilities such as Duo-Fast Corporation's Franklin Park, 
Illinois facility be subject to specific emission limits. On November 
27, 1990, Duo-Fast filed a petition for reconsideration with USEPA in 
which it contended that USEPA failed to respond to Duo-Fast's March 2, 
1990, comments in response to USEPA's December 27, 1990, proposed 
promulgation of the [[Page 26859]] Chicago FIP. On November 19, 1994 
(59 FR 59739), USEPA published a proposed rule on this reconsideration 
which offered the opportunity for a public hearing. A public hearing 
was held on the November 19, 1994, proposed rule on March 8, 1995, and 
the public comment period was reopened February 3, 1995 (60 FR 6687) 
and remained open until April 7, 1995 (30 days after the public 
hearing). At the request of Duo-Fast, USEPA is granting a further 
ninety day extension of the public comment period until July 6, 1995.

DATES: The public comment period is reopened from May 19, 1995 until 
July 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule should be addressed 
to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Comments should be strictly limited 
to the subject matter of the November 18, 1994 proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Regulation 
Development Branch, 18th Floor Southwest, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052.

    Dated: May 9, 1995.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-12303 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1287 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

332 South Main Street in Flora, Illinois, as the ‘‘Robert T. Ferguson 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2005 

Mr. SHIMKUS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 332 South Main Street in Flora, Illinois, as 

the ‘‘Robert T. Ferguson Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ROBERT T. FERGUSON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 332 South Main Street in Flora, 

6 Illinois, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert T. 

7 Ferguson Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2 

•HR 1287 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Robert T. Ferguson 

3 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ
Christopher Michael WANKEN v. John Dwight WANKEN, et al.

No. 12-1428, R46-023.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 21, 2013.

The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of this Court.
# Euroopa Liidu C 8/9. j

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 8 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 62. aastakäik9. jaanuar 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 8

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

62. aastakäik9. jaanuar 2019

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Teated |
| | HALDUSMENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa Parlament |
| 2019/C 8/01 | Otsus | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

V   Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Parlament

2019/C 8/01

Otsus

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

V Teated

HALDUSMENETLUSED

Euroopa Parlament

| 9.1.2019 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 8/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2019

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 8/1

---

OTSUS

(2019/C 8/01)

EUROOPA PARLAMENDI PEASEKRETÄR,

| — | VÕTTES ARVESSE nõukogu määrust (EMÜ, Euratom, ESTÜ) nr 259/68, (1) mida on muudetud eelkõige Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 22. oktoobri 2013. aasta määrusega (EL, Euratom) nr 1023/2013, millega muudetakse Euroopa Liidu ametnike personalieeskirju ja Euroopa Liidu muude teenistujate teenistustingimusi, (2) eelkõige personalieeskirjade artiklit 30, |
| --- | --- |

—

VÕTTES ARVESSE nõukogu määrust (EMÜ, Euratom, ESTÜ) nr 259/68, (1) mida on muudetud eelkõige Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 22. oktoobri 2013. aasta määrusega (EL, Euratom) nr 1023/2013, millega muudetakse Euroopa Liidu ametnike personalieeskirju ja Euroopa Liidu muude teenistujate teenistustingimusi, (2) eelkõige personalieeskirjade artiklit 30,

| — | VÕTTES ARVESSE Euroopa Parlamendi juhatuse 13. jaanuari 2014. aasta otsust volituste andmise kohta ametisse nimetavale asutusele või ametiisikule ning teenistuslepinguid sõlmima volitatud ametiisikule, |
| --- | --- |

—

VÕTTES ARVESSE Euroopa Parlamendi juhatuse 13. jaanuari 2014. aasta otsust volituste andmise kohta ametisse nimetavale asutusele või ametiisikule ning teenistuslepinguid sõlmima volitatud ametiisikule,

| — | VÕTTES ARVESSE, et 31. detsembril 2018 kaotavad kehtivuse järgmised Euroopa Parlamendi reservnimekirjad:
  AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S, |
| --- | --- |

—

VÕTTES ARVESSE, et 31. detsembril 2018 kaotavad kehtivuse järgmised Euroopa Parlamendi reservnimekirjad:

AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S,

| — | VÕTTES ARVESSE ühiskomitee 24. oktoobri 2018. aasta koosolekul esitatud arvamust, |
| --- | --- |

—

VÕTTES ARVESSE ühiskomitee 24. oktoobri 2018. aasta koosolekul esitatud arvamust,

OTSUSTAB

Ainus artikkel

Reservnimekirjade

AD/1/13, AST/4/11, AST/1/13, PE/168/S, PE/171/S, PE/185/S, PE/186/S

kehtivusaega pikendatakse 31. detsembrini 2019.

Luxembourg, 30. november 2018

Peasekretär

Klaus WELLE

---

(1)  ELT L 56, 4.3.1968 lk 1.

1

(2)  ELT L 287, 29.10.2013, lk 15.

2

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### June 6, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 133079 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### TERRIE ABEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 133079 COA: 263813 Wayne CC: 03-309091-NZ OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s0530 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 6, 2007

Clerk
Lin Rashied JONES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9517.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1164]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 010995B]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and its 
Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Committee, Habitat Committee, and Squid, 
Mackerel and Butterfish Committee will hold public meetings on January 
31-February 2, 1995, at the Dunes Manor Hotel, 28th Street and the 
Ocean, Ocean City, MD 21842, telephone: (410) 289-1100. On January 31, 
the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog Committee will meet from 1:00 p.m. until 
4:00 p.m., and the Habitat Committee will meet from 4:00 p.m. until 
5:00 p.m. On February 1, the Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Committee 
will meet from 8:00 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., followed by the full Council 
meeting until 5:00 p.m. On February 2, the full Council will meet from 
8:00 a.m. until approximately noon.
    The following topics may be discussed:
    (1) Review stock assessment for surf clams and ocean quahogs;
    (2) Review North Carolina surf clam situation;
    (3) Review hearing record and comments on Amendment 5 to Squid, 
Mackerel, Butterfish Fishery Management Plan and decide on changes, if 
any;
    (4) Have an information and education report on hook and release 
mortality;
    (5) Discuss habitat agenda items for 1995; and
    (6) Other fishery management matters.
    The Council meeting may be revised, lengthened or shortened based 
on the progress of the meeting. The Council may go into closed session 
to discuss personnel or national security matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Keifer, Executive Director, 
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 
19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is physically accessible to 
people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or 
other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis on (302) 674-
2331, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 11, 1995.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-1164 Filed 1-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
**Exhibit 34.4**

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Board of Directors 

BancTec, Inc. 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”), that BancTec, Inc. (“the Company”) complied with theapplicable servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for remittance processing services including asset-backed securities transactions involving creditcard receivables conducted by Discover Card Master Trust I and Discover Card Execution Note Trust (“the Platform”) that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or werenot required to be registered where the related asset-backed securities were outstanding during the Reporting Period as of and for the year ended November 30, 2011. The Company has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria is notapplicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended November 30, 2011. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about theCompany’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions andsecurities constituting the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the period covered by the report.Accordingly, our testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurredprior to the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that BancTec, Inc. complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria, as described within Management’s Report, as of and for the year ended November 30, 2011 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all materialrespects. 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

February 21, 2012
Matthew David DELEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2136

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**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 theQuarterly Report of AXCESS International Inc. (the “***Company***”) on Form10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Report***”), I, Allan Griebenow, President,Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as applicable; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periodsindicated.

 

 
| /S/ ALLAN  GRIEBENOW                                                |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Allan  Griebenow                                                    |
| President,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer |
|                                                                |
| Dated:  November 13, 2003                                      |

 

----
Tony Wayne ANDERSON and Terry Weldon Anderson, petitioners, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-9139.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DAMON COLLINS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1363

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the habeas petition

challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding, filed by Damon

Collins, a pro se prisoner, on December 13, 2013 (DE #1). The

respondent moves to dismiss the petition as moot. (DE #8.) For

the reasons set forth below, the respondent’s motion (DE #8) is

GRANTED, and the petition (DE #1) is DISMISSED.

BACKGROUND

In WCC #13-06-0577, Collins was found guilty of possessing a

cell phone. (DE #8-2.) On December 13, 2013, he filed a federal

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the guilty

finding. (DE #1). After he filed the petition, the Indiana

Department of Correction (“IDOC”) final reviewing authority decided

to vacate the disciplinary conviction and remand the case for a new

hearing. (DE #8-1.) Based on the IDOC’s action, the respondent

moves to dismiss the petition as moot. (DE #8.)
DISCUSSION

As the respondent points out, the guilty finding Collins

challenged in his petition has been vacated; thus, the petition has

become moot. See Hadley v. Holmes, 341 F.3d 661, 664 (7th Cir.

2003) (prison disciplinary conviction can be challenged in a

federal habeas proceeding only if it lengthened the duration of the

petitioner’s confinement); see also Brown v. Bartholomew Consol.

Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 596 (7th Cir. 2006) (“For a case to be

justiciable, a live controversy must continue to exist at all

stages of review, not simply on the date the action was

initiated.”). 

Collins has filed an objection to the motion. (DE #14.) He

suggests that by vacating the conviction, the respondent engaged in

an improper legal maneuver intended to deprive him of his right to

judicial review. Regardless of the respondent’s motives for

vacating the conviction, the applicable law provides that Collins

cannot pursue habeas relief in connection with a disciplinary

proceeding unless it lengthened his sentence. See Hadley, 341 F.3d

at 664. The results of the original hearing were vacated, and so

by definition that conviction could not have lengthened his

sentence.

Collins also complains that a new hearing was held in June

2
2014 and he was again found guilty of possessing a cell phone. To

the extent he is arguing that this violated his double jeopardy

rights, his argument is unavailing, since double jeopardy

principles do not apply in the prison disciplinary context. See

Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly,

the petition will be dismissed. If Collins believes his due

process rights were violated at the rehearing, he is free to file

a new petition challenging that hearing after exhausting his

available administrative remedies.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the respondent’s motion (DE

#8) is GRANTED, and the petition (DE #1) is DISMISSED. 

DATED: July 30, 2014 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

 United States District Court

3
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WAYMO LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; 

OTTOMOTTO LLC; OTTO TRUCKING 

LLC, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00939-WHA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF WAYMO LLC’S MOTION 

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Having considered Plaintiff Waymo LLC’s (“Waymo”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 

the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. Specifically, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., 

Ottomotto LLC, and Otto Trucking LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) are hereby preliminarily 

enjoined from accessing, using, imitating, copying, disclosing, or making available to any person 

or entity Waymo’s Asserted Trade Secrets, including but not limited to the Asserted Trade Secrets 

as embodied in LiDAR systems that contain or are designed to operate with the printed circuit 

board depicted in the schematic attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of William Grossman or 

any colorable variation thereof. Defendants are further preliminarily enjoined from making, using, 

selling, or offering to sell devices that infringe claims 1 or 13 of United States Patent No. 

8,836,922 and claims 1 or 14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,285,464. Defendants are further ordered to 

return any and all Waymo confidential information in their possession or control, including the 

14,000+ documents unlawfully taken from Waymo by Mr. Anthony Levandowski and his 

colleagues. 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 24-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 2
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

-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: ____________, 2017 ___________________________________ 

 The Honorable William H. Alsup 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 24-1 Filed 03/10/17 Page 2 of 2
David CALHOUN, petitioner, v. Lawrence F. MURRAY, et al.

No. 12-9141.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Allen Dwayne TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3463

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-281-CR

FABIAN LEE GREEN JR. APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 213 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TH

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered the “Appellant’s Motion To Withdraw The Appeal.”

The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before

we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). 

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 18, 2008
Marshall JACKSON, petitioner, v. NEW MEXICO.

No. 12-8875.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico denied.