alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert LESHIN; Vienna Leshin, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-70399.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 7, 2011.

Jeffrey Dean Moffatt, Law Office of Jeff Moffatt, Lancaster, CA, for Petitioners-Appellants.

Regina S. Moriarty, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Andrea R. Tebbets, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert R. Di Trolio, Esquire, Clerk, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Esquire, Acting Chief Counsel, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert and Vienna Leshin appeal from the Tax Court’s decision after a trial upholding the IRS Office of Appeals’ determination sustaining a tax lien for their unpaid federal income taxes for 2001, and rejecting their offer-in-compromise for income tax liabilities from 1999 through 2004. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). On appeal from the Tax Court, we review for an abuse of discretion the Office of Appeals’ decision whether to accept an offer-in-compromise and for clear error the factual findings. *Keller v. Comm’r,*568 F.3d 710, 716 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The Office of Appeals did not clearly err in its factual findings underlying the calculation of the Leshins’ reasonable collection potential, which exceeded the Leshins’ offer-in-compromise. Accordingly, the Office of Appeals did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the offer. *See id.*at 717-18 (no abuse of discretion in rejecting taxpayers’ offer-in-compromise where reasonable collection potential exceeded offer). Although the Office of Appeals made mistakes in calculating the Leshins’ necessary living expenses, the mistakes were harmless because the Commissioner of Internal Revenue corrected the mistakes in the Tax Court and showed that, with the corrections, the Leshins’ offer was still far below their reasonable collection potential. *See id.*at 718.

The Leshins’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

*792We do not consider documents that were not part of the record before the Office of Appeals. *See id.*

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA** 

**____________________________________ :**  **ABU WA’EL (JIHAD) DHIAB, : :**  **Petitioner, : :**  **v. : :**  **BARACK H. OBAMA, et. al., : Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK) :**  **Respondents. : ______________________________:** 

**ORDER** During a lengthy bench conference at the status hearing held on May 21, 2014, the Court strongly suggested that the Parties come to a compromise about the procedures used to enterally feed Petitioner Dhiab during the pendency of his Application for Preliminary Injunction. Mr. Dhiab’s physical condition was swiftly deteriorating, in large part because he was refusing food and/or water. Mr. Dhiab has indicated his willingness to be enterally fed, if it could be done at the hospital in Guantánamo Bay, if he could be spared the agony of having the feeding tubes inserted and removed for each feeding, and if he could be spared the pain and discomfort of the restraint chair. If he could have been enterally fed in that manner, it would have then been possible to litigate his plea to enjoin certain practices used in his force feedings in a civilized and–2– legally appropriate manner. The Department of Defense refused to make these compromises. The Court is now faced with an anguishing Hobson’s choice: reissue another Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) despite the very real probability that Mr. Dhiab will die, because he has indicated a continuing desire to refuse to eat and/or drink liquids, or refuse to issue the TRO and allow the medical personnel on the scene to take the medical actions to keep Mr. Dhiab alive, but at the possible cost of great pain and suffering. The Court is in no position to make the complex medical decisions necessary to keep Mr. Dhiab alive. Thanks to the intransigence of the Department of Defense, Mr. Dhiab may well suffer unnecessary pain from certain enteral feeding practices and forcible cell extractions. However, the Court simply cannot let Mr. Dhiab die. The Court does, however, remind all personnel that they should abide by their own Standard Operating Protocols, and that the standard for enteral feeding is whether Mr. Dhiab is actually facing an “imminent risk of death or great bodily injury.” Moreover, in an effort to ensure that any suffering by Mr. Dhiab is not prolonged, the Court will issue a scheduling order–3– tomorrow to facilitate the speedy exchange of discovery such that the Court can reach the merits of Mr. Dhiab’s Application. For all the reasons above, and based on the entire record herein, it is hereby

**ORDERED** , that the Temporary Restraining Order in this case will not be reissued.

/s/_________________________ May 22, 2014 Gladys Kessler United States District Judge

**Copies to:** attorneys on record via ECF
Jose Miguel MARTE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10431.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

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

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1878 

To suspend temporarily the duty on shield asy-steering gear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. CAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on shield asy-steering gear. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHIELD ASY-STEERING GEAR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.87.01 Steering gear assemblies for 

single-pinion constant-ratio 

electronic power assisted 

steering systems, rated at 80 

amperes at 12 V, designed 

for use in hybrid motor vehicles of heading 8703 (provided for in subheading 

8708.99.73) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1878 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Said GSSIME, petitioner, v. Daniel MARTUSCELLO, Superintendent, Coxsackie Correctional Facility.

No. 12-9534.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2157

___________

Bertha Mae McBride, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Rose Higgins, Administrative Review * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Officer, McPherson Unit, ADC, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 31, 2004

Filed: May 5, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Bertha Mae McBride brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

against administrative review officer Rose Higgins. McBride alleged that, after she

filed a grievance complaining about continued harassment by two officers, Higgins

issued her a “major disciplinary” for using the grievance process. The disciplinary

resulted in a classification reduction, thirty days in segregation, and the loss of

good-time credit. McBride sought punitive damages and restoration of her good-time
1

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

-2-

credit and class. Prior to service, the district court1

 dismissed her complaint without

prejudice. McBride appeals.

The district court properly dismissed McBride’s action after concluding that

her claim was foreclosed by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (to recover

damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for harm from actions

whose unlawfulness would render conviction or sentence invalid, § 1983 plaintiff

must prove conviction or sentence has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or

called into question), because she challenged discipline that included the loss of

good-time credit, and a judgment in her favor would necessarily imply the invalidity

of her disciplinary conviction. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644-48 (1997)

(extending Heck to prison discipline decisions).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R.

47A(a).

______________________________
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of DNB Financial Corporation (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William S. Latoff, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.














/s/ William S.
Latoff


William
S. Latoff


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer


November
13, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2062 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2062

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 57 West Street in Newville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Randall D. 
                    Shughart Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 57 West 
Street in Newville, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the 
``Randall D. Shughart Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Randall D. Shughart Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2062

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 57 West Street in Newville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Randall D. 
                    Shughart Post Office Building''.
```
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1894 

To suspend temporarily the duty on NaHP. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on NaHP. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NAHP. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.05.88 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)–5- 

hydroxypyrimidine sodium 

salt (CAS No. 146237–62– 

9) (provided for in subheading 2933.59.70) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 1894 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kevin V. BURTON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7490.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2006.

Decided: May 3, 2006.

Kevin V. Burton, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett James, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Kevin V. Burton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding dismissing several of Burton’s claims, referring his remaining claims to a magistrate judge, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on the remaining claims following an evidentiary hearing and denying Burton’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealabili*274ty. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A cer-tifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1718 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1718

 To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
 Liability Act of 1980 to require public availability of an accounting 
of all funds used, or required to be used, for response to a release of 
           a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
 Liability Act of 1980 to require public availability of an accounting 
of all funds used, or required to be used, for response to a release of 
           a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pollution Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 117 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9617) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Accounting.--Any person who undertakes, or who is required to 
undertake, a response to a release of a hazardous substance or 
pollutant or contaminant shall make available to any person, on 
request, an accounting of any funds used, or required by any court or 
administrative action to be used, for such response.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12382]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Flight Service Station at Sitka, Alaska; Change in Facility 
Operation

    Notice is hereby given that on or about May 20, 1995, the Sitka, 
Alaska, Flight Service Station (FSS) hours will change permanently from 
operating 24 hours a day to operating from 6:00 a.m. to 9:45 p.m. 
daily. Services to the general aviation public provided by this 
facility will be provided by the Automated Flight Service Station at 
Juneau, Alaska, during the hours the Sitka FSS is closed. This 
information will be reflected in the FAA Organization Statement the 
next time it is reissued. Sec. 313(a) of the Federal Aviation Act of 
1958, as amended, 72 Stat. 752; 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a).

    Issued in Anchorage, Alaska, on May 3, 1995.
Jacqueline L. Smith,
Regional Administrator, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 95-12382 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Exhibit 15.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement No. 333-151565 on Form S-8 of our report dated June 17, 2011 relating to the consolidated financial statements of ChinaEdu Corporation, its subsidiaries, its variable interest entity and its variable interest entity’s subsidiaries (collectively, the "Group") as of December 31, 2009 and 2010 and for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, and the financial statement schedule of ChinaEdu Corporation, and our report dated June 17, 2011 relating to the effectiveness of the Group's internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of ChinaEdu Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010.

















Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.


Beijing, the People's Republic of China


June 22, 2011
Exhibit 10.44



 Exhibit 10.44 

Dominion Resources, Inc. 
 2015
Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers* 
 The 2015 base salaries for Dominion’s named executive officers are as follows: Thomas F.
Farrell II, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer—$1,465,729; Mark F. McGettrick, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer—$829,322; Paul D. Koonce, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer— Energy
Infrastructure Group—$663,550; David A. Christian, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer—Dominion Generation Group—$663,550; and David A. Heacock, President and Chief Nuclear Officer—Dominion Nuclear—$515,217.

  

	*	Effective March 1, 2015
|   | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  |   8/3/10 |   |   /s/ Lloyd C. Hillard, Jr.     |
|--------|---------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |          |   | Lloyd C. Hillard, Jr.                     |
|   |          |   | President and CEO                         |
|   |          |   |                                      |
|   |          |   |                                      |
| Date:  |   8-5-10 |   |   /s/ Doug Carpenter            |
|   |          |   | C. Douglas Carpenter                      |
|   |          |   | Senior Vice President, Secretary, and CFO |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-58-TLS 

)

JD RICHEY )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 25], filed on January 31, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 25] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on February 21, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT