alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research Unit Infographics National Plant Germplasm System Seeds of Success Collaboration Fact Sheet Plant Germplasm Introduction Testing and Research Unit’s Temperate-adapted Forage Legume Fact Sheet More Information on Plant Genetic Resources Plant Genetic Resources - The Key to Global Food Security Plant Genetic Resources - Genebanks and Conservation  Video of the National Plant Germplasm System's Mission     ARS News Articles  New Faba Beans Offer Multiple BenefitsJul 27, 2016U.S. National Inventory Created for Wild Relatives of Important CropsJan 27, 2014Disease-resistant Peas Developed for ReleaseNov 21, 2013Fungus-on-Fungus Fight Could Benefit ChickpeasDec 04, 2009Experimental Chickpeas Fend off Caterpillar PestAug 25, 2009ARS Honors Scientists and Support StaffFeb 10, 2009New Peas Resist Fungal FoeAug 08, 2008New Safflower Lines Survive WintersMar 25, 2008


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

GERALD BRANAM, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CAUSE NO. 4:15-CV-115 RM 

vs. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Gerald Branam, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the

prison disciplinary hearing (MCF 15-08-324) where the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO)

at the Miami Correctional Facility found him guilty of Conspiracy to Possess a Controlled

Substance on September 8, 2015, in violation of B240/202 and sanctioned him with the loss

of 47 days earned credit time and demoted him to Credit Class 3. 

Mr. Branam presents one ground for challenging this proceeding. He argues that he

“was denied my right to an appeal to the final reviewing board.” DE 1 at 2. “Prison

disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of

rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

539, 556 (1974). Wolff identified several rights that inmates have in the disciplinary hearing

itself, but Wolff didn’t for an appeal right, and it isn’t for this court to create one. White v.

Ind. Parole Bd., 266 F.3d 759, 768 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976),

warns . . . not to add to the procedures required by Wolff, which, Baxter held, represents

a balance of interests that should not be further adjusted in favor of prisoners.”) Therefore,
habeas relief is not available even if Mr. Branam had been denied an appeal.

Even so, Mr. Branam wasn’t denied an appeal. Rather the processing of his appeal

paperwork was only temporarily delayed. The Final Reviewing Authority considered the

merits of his arguments on appeal and denied them on November 19, 2015. DE 1-2 at 1. Mr.

Branam argues that prison policies were violated in the way his appeal was processed, but

the violation of a prison policy isn’t a basis for habeas corpus relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502

U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding

whether a conviction violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”)

 For these reasons, the court DENIES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and DISMISSES this case.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: December 21 , 2015.

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000701345
<NAME> US AIRWAYS GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             724
<SECURITIES>                                       721
<RECEIVABLES>                                      438<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                        225
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,718
<PP&E>                                           6,250
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,794
<BONDS>                                          1,971
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                         610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,138
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,567
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    728
<INCOME-TAX>                                       294
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                434
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       434
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.40
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are presented net of allowances.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129661 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129661 

 COA: 263420 

Kalamazoo CC: 03-001841-FC 

PAUL MICHAEL REED, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 17, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JULIE ANN KAMINSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE GAP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00404-RL-JEM

Honorable Rudy Lozano

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Julie Ann Kaminski (“Plaintiff”), hereby notifies the 

Court that the Parties have settled all claims between them in this matter and are in the process of 

completing the final closing documents and filing the dismissal. The Parties anticipate this 

process to take no more than 60 days and request that the Court retain jurisdiction for any 

matters related to completing and/or enforcing the settlement. The Parties propose to file a 

stipulated dismissal with prejudice with 60 days of submission of this Notice of Settlement and 

pray the Court to stay all proceedings until that time.

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of December, 2016. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Nathan C. Volheim

Nathan C. Volheim

Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd. 

900 Jorie Boulevard, Suite 150 

Oak Brook, IL 60523 

(630) 575-8181 

nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00404-RL-JEM document 16 filed 12/21/16 page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I today caused a copy of the foregoing document to be electronically 

filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will be sent to all attorneys of 

record.

s/ Nathan C. Volheim_____

Nathan C. Volheim

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00404-RL-JEM document 16 filed 12/21/16 page 2 of 2
LKQ-EX10.15_2014.12.31


Exhibit 10.15


	
					
	 
	M E M O R A N D U M
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	TO:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	FROM:
	Compensation Committee
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	DATE:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	RE:
	Long Term Incentive Plan  
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 








You have been selected to participate in the LKQ Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) for the _____________ Performance Period.  The potential payout under your award is subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the LTIP (a copy of which is attached to this memorandum).  In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of the LTIP and this memorandum, the terms and conditions of the LTIP shall control.
	
							
	Performance Period:
	 
	January 1,                          
	 to December 31,                                
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Awards Components:
	 
	See the attached Award Component Matrix

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Subject to the condition that the stockholders of the 

	 
	 
	 
	Company approve proposal no. 4 (Amendment to Our 

	 
	 
	 
	Long Term Incentive Plan) at the Annual Meeting of 

	 
	 
	 
	Stockholders on May 7, 2012, each of diluted earnings per 

	 
	 
	 
	share, revenue and return on equity shall be increased to the 

	 
	 
	 
	extent that it was reduced in accordance with GAAP by 

	 
	 
	 
	objectively determinable amounts (as specifically disclosed 

	 
	 
	 
	in the Company's financial statements or other filings under 

	 
	 
	 
	the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) due to:

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	1.
	A change in accounting policy or GAAP;

	 
	 
	2.
	Dispositions of assets or businesses;

	 
	 
	3.
	Asset impairments;

	 
	 
	4.
	Amounts incurred in connection with any refinancing;

	 
	 
	5.
	Losses on interest rate swaps resulting from mark to

	 
	 
	 
	market adjustments or discontinuing hedges;

	 
	 
	6.
	Board approved restructuring charges









	
							
	 
	 
	7.
	Losses related to environmental, legal, product liability

	 
	 
	 
	or other contingencies;

	 
	8.
	Changes in tax laws; 

	 
	 
	9.
	Changes in contingent purchase price liabilities; 

	 
	10.
	Losses from discontinued operations; and 

	 
	 
	11.
	Other extraordinary, unusual or infrequently occurring 

	 
	 
	 
	items as disclosed in the Company's financial statements   

	 
	 
	 
	or filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Abasi S. BAKER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-188.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Davis, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dubin, J.), rendered November 13, 1980, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years.

Judgment affirmed.

Our review of the evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s attack upon the complainant was not justified. The People’s evidence established that defendant was the initial aggressor, that the complainant was not armed, and that defendant shot the complainant twice, once in the back. The jury chose to believe the People’s witnesses and, in the absence of any indication that their testimony was incredible as a matter of law, this court will not supplant the jury’s judgment *(see, Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307, *reh denied 444*US 890; *People v Regina,*19 NY2d 65).

Additionally, the certified hospital records of complainant’s treatment after the incident were properly admitted into evidence and are competent proof of the wounds received by him *(see,*CPL 60.10; CPLR 4518 [a], [c]). The courts have consistently recognized that such records are admissible in a criminal trial notwithstanding the lack of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the declarant *(see, People v Sanders,*56 NY2d 51, 63; *People v Nisonoff,*293 NY 597, 601-603; *People v Klein,*105 AD2d 805). Defendant’s counsel was free to attempt to controvert the medical evidence, which he chose not to do.

Defense counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s improper inquiry regarding defendant’s pretrial silence does not rise to the level necessary to sustain a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel *(Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668,104 S Ct 2052; *People v Karamanites,*104 AD2d 899). Defendant’s other claims of deficient performance by his counsel are without merit.

*253Finally, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years in light of defendant’s violent, unprovoked conduct *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
[No. 39096-1-I.

Division One.

September 16, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jason Lilly Vriezema, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-01525-0, Donald D. Haley, J., entered July 22, 1997. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Michael HARRILL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10210.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 7, 2011.

*771Kathleen Anne Servatius, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Joan Levie, Law Offices of Joan Jacobs Levie, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

Steven Michael Harrill appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Harrill first contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). We review for plain error. *See United States v. Hammons,*558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court did not plainly err. It stated the correct guideline and statutory range, reviewed all of the evidence submitted, listened to mitigating arguments, considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors, and did not sanction Harrill solely or primarily for the underlying revocation offense. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), *see also United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir.2006) (the district court can sanction a violator for his breach of trust).

Harrill also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3583(e). *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51-52, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also*U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 n. 4.

Appellant’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99(b)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-QSB of United Financial Banking
Companies, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, I, Lisa M. Porter, Chief
Financial Officer of United Financial Banking Companies, Inc., hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)      such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, 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 such Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
         June 30, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
         condition and results of operations of United Financial Banking
         Companies, Inc.



/s/ Lisa M. Porter
Lisa M. Porter
Chief Financial Officer

                                       16
EXHIBIT 31.2

      OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES OXLEY ACT

     I, Patricia A. Palmieri, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended October
31, 2003 of National Energy Services Company, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order
to make the  statements  made,  in light of the  circumstances  under which such
statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure  that  material  information  relating  to  the  small  business  issuer,
including its  consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within
those  entities,  particularly  during the period in which this  report is being
prepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business  issuer's  disclosure
controls and  procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     (c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the  disclosure  controls and  procedures  based on our  evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying  officer(s) and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent  evaluation,  to the small  business  issuer's  auditors and the
audit  committee of the small  business  issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

     (a) All  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation of internal
controls  which  could  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability to record,
process,  summarize  and  report  financial  data  and have  identified  for the
registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and
     (b) Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
controls; and

Date:  February 11, 2005

                                        By: /s/ Patricia A. Palmieri
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Patricia A. Palmieri
                                        Controller
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000353 19-FEB-2016 08:39 AM