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
 Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit: El Reno, OK
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area El Reno, Oklahoma Oklahoma and Central Plains Agricultural Research Center Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit People & Locations







Michelle  Filipchuk

(Mary)
                        Livestock, Forage and Pasture Management Research Unit

                        




                        
                        Program Support Assistant
                        Phone: (580) 256-7449
                        
                        
                        Fax: (580) 571-6461(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7723

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. CALVIN BERNARD GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:99-cr-00032-jct-1; 7:09-cv-80166-jct-mfu)

Submitted: November 3, 2009 Decided: November 30, 2009

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Bernard Green, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph William Hooge Mott, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Bernard Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Green 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
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43914-43915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17103]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0034]
RIN 1625-AA09


Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chicago River, Chicago, IL; 
Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correcting a final rule that appeared in 
the Federal Register on July 30, 2021. The final rule announced changes 
to the Amtrak Railroad Bridge, mile 3.77, across the South Branch of 
the Chicago River, at Chicago, Illinois. The rule has an effective date 
of August 30, 2021. This correction fixes an incorrect amendatory

[[Page 43915]]

instruction within that final rule that deleted existing regulatory 
text that should not have been deleted.

DATES: This correction is effective on August 30, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, 
call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth 
Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#420e27276c066c112d372e2702373121256c2f2b2e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8f4dddd96fc96ebd7cdd4ddf8cdcbdbdf96d5d1d4">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    On July 30, 2021 the Coast Guard published a final rule titled 
``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Chicago River, Chicago, IL'' (86 FR 
40957). In this document, FR Doc. 2021-15986, appearing on page 40959, 
in the first and second columns, the final rule inadvertently deleted 
what was in paragraph (d) and replaced it with new text. The Coast 
Guard did not intend to delete the existing text and requirements in 
117.391(d). Therefore, we are correcting the final rule to instead add 
a new paragraph (e) with the same regulatory text as was issued in the 
final rule and preserve what has been in existing paragraph (d).
    On page 40959, in the first column, in part 117, amendatory 
instruction number 2 is corrected to read as follows:

0
2. Amend Sec.  117.391 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  117.391  Chicago River.

* * * * *
    (e) The Amtrak Bridge, mile 3.77, is authorized to operate remotely 
and open to the intermediate position on signal, unless a request for a 
full opening is received by the drawtender. The bridge is required to 
operate a marine radio.
* * * * *

M. T. Cunningham,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2021-17103 Filed 8-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

989 

KA 10-00828 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL CAMERON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT B. HALLBORG,

JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F.

Pietruszka, J.), rendered November 25, 2009. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of

justice and on the law by providing that the order of protection shall

expire on August 24, 2017 and as modified the judgment is affirmed. 

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment

convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the third degree

(Penal Law § 130.25 [3]). Defendant correctly contends that the

waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his contention that

County Court erred in setting the expiration date of the order of

protection from the date of sentencing rather than the date of

conviction (see People v Cambridge, 55 AD3d 1381). Although defendant

failed to preserve that contention for our review (see CPL 470.05

[2]), we nevertheless exercise our power to review that contention as

a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6]

[a]), and we modify the judgment by providing that the order of

protection shall expire on August 24, 2017 (see CPL 530.13 [former (4)

(i)]; see generally Cambridge, 55 AD3d 1381).

In appeal No. 2, defendant appeals from an order determining that

he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Because the court made only general

and conclusory findings of fact and conclusions of law, we are unable

to conduct a meaningful review of the risk level assessment,

particularly with respect to the court’s assessment of 15 points for

the failure of defendant to accept responsibility for his actions (see

People v Leopold, 13 NY3d 923; People v Smith, 11 NY3d 797, 798;
-2- 989 

KA 10-00828 

People v Flax, 71 AD3d 1451). We therefore reverse the order and

remit the matter to County Court for compliance with Correction Law §

168-n (3) (see Flax, 71 AD3d 1451).

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1001

To amend title 31, United States Code, to address the failure to appropriate

sufficient funds to make full payments in lieu of taxes under chapter

69 of that title by exempting certain users of the National Forest

System from fees imposed in connection with the use.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 10, 1997

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. GREGG) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend title 31, United States Code, to address the failure

to appropriate sufficient funds to make full payments

in lieu of taxes under chapter 69 of that title by exempting certain users of the National Forest System from

fees imposed in connection with the use.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Local Forest User

5 Fairness Act’’.
2

•S 1001 IS

1 SEC. 2. LOCAL EXEMPTIONS FROM FOREST SERVICE USER

2 FEES DUE TO LESS THAN FULL FUNDING OF

3 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES.

4 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

5 (1) the Federal Government provides payments

6 in lieu of taxes under chapter 69 of title 31, United

7 States Code, to compensate units of general local

8 government whose tax base is diminished by Federal

9 ownership of lands, including Federal lands in the

10 National Forest System administered by the Forest

11 Service;

12 (2) amounts appropriated to provide payments

13 in lieu of taxes under that chapter have been signifi14 cantly less than the amounts necessary to comply

15 fully with the payment formulas contained in that

16 chapter; and

17 (3) by failing to fully fund payments in lieu of

18 taxes to units of general local government whose ju19 risdictions contain Federal lands, including National

20 Forest System lands, the Federal Government is in21 creasing the tax burden on local property owners.

22 (b) NATIONAL FOREST USER FEE EXEMPTION.—

23 Section 6906 of title 31, United States Code, is amend24 ed—

25 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—’’ before

26 ‘‘Necessary’’; and
3

•S 1001 IS

1 (2) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(b) LOCAL EXEMPTIONS FROM USER FEES DUE TO

3 INSUFFICIENT APPROPRIATIONS.—

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Unless sufficient funds are

5 appropriated for a fiscal year to provide full pay6 ments under this chapter to each unit of general

7 local government eligible for the payments, persons

8 residing within the boundaries of that unit of gen9 eral local government shall be exempt during that

10 fiscal year from any recreational user fees imposed

11 by the Secretary of Agriculture for access to units

12 of the National Forest System that lie, in whole or

13 in part, within the boundaries.

14 ‘‘(2) ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary of Agri15 culture shall establish a method for identifying and

16 exempting persons covered by this subsection from

17 the user fees.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44408-44409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17347]


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

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, August 19, 2021.

PLACE: Via Conference Call.

STATUS: Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of 
the meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Regular Board of Directors meeting.
    The General Counsel of the Corporation has certified that in his 
opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in the Government in 
the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(2) and (4) permit closure of the 
following portion(s) of this meeting:

<bullet> Executive Session

Agenda

I. Call to Order
II. Executive Session Other Matter
III. Executive Session Sunshine Act
IV. Executive Session: Report from CEO
V. Executive Session: Report from CFO
VI. Executive Session: NeighborWorks Compass<SUP>TM</SUP> Update
VII. Action Item Approval of Minutes
VIII. Action Item FY2022 Preliminary Spend Plan
IX. Action Item NeighborWorks Compass <SUP>TM</SUP>

[[Page 44409]]

    a. Resolution To Authorize Expansion of Tech Development Contract
    b. Resolution To Authorize Execution of Customer Services Contract
X. Discussion Item Audit Committee Report
XI. Discussion Item FY2023 Budget Submission
XII. Discussion Item Replacement of Procurement Platform (NEST)
XIII. Discussion Item Strategic Planning Update
XIV. Discussion Item Operations Guide Review
XV. Discussion Item Kansas City Office Lease Strategy
XVI. Discussion Item DC Office Lease Strategy
XVII. Adjournment

PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC: Everything except the Executive Session.

PORTIONS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC: Executive Session.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Lakeyia Thompson, Special 
Assistant, (202) 524-9940; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#175b637f787a6764787957796039786570"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="521e263a3d3f22213d3c123c257c3d2035">[email protected]</span></a>.

Lakeyia Thompson,
Special Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2021-17347 Filed 8-10-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7570-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-65,609-07

EX P ARTE LES LEY WAYNE CONNOR, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. B-03-1172-S-W-7 IN THE 119th DISTRICT COURT

F ROM TOM G REEN COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Tex as C o d e o f Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was conv i ct ed o f one count of assault on a f

amily member a

nd one count of

terroristic threat. Applica nt was sentenc ed to eighty five year s’ imprisonment and one hundr ed and e ight da y s in state jail, respec tively
. In his prese nt application, Applicant raises five g rounds. This application, howeve r, prese nts
a more serious question. This Court’s rec ords ref lect that Applicant has filed six prior applications perta ining to this conviction. It is obvious f rom the rec ord that Applicant continues to r aise issues2

that have been presented and rejected in previous applicat i o n s or t hat s hould have been presented in previous applications. The writ of habeas cor p u s is not to be li ghtly or easily abused. Sanders

v. U.S. , 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr , 511 S.W .2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Be cause of his repe titive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barr ed from revie w under Article 11.07, § 4, and ar e wa ived and a

bandoned by

his abuse of the writ. This application is dismiss ed. There fore , we inst ruct the Clerk of the C ourt of C rimi n al Ap p ea ls not to acc ept or file t he instant application for a writ of habea s corpus, or any future application perta ining to this conviction unless Applicant is able to sh ow in such an application that any claims prese nted have not been raised previously and that they could not have been prese nted in a previous application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Bilton , 602 S.W .2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: Dec ember

12, 2018 Do not publish
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 12.1


SUMMIT PROPERTIES PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001
(Dollars In thousands)

Earnings:
       Net Income....................................................  $ 34,467
       Interest:
          Expense incurred...........................................    20,157
          Amortization of deferred financing costs...................       697
          Rental fixed charges.......................................       169
                                                                       --------

          Total......................................................  $ 55,490
                                                                       ========


Fixed charges:
       Interest expense..............................................  $ 20,157
       Interest capitalized..........................................     6,363
       Dividends to preferred unitholders in
         Operating Partnership.......................................     6,210
       Rental fixed charges..........................................       169
       Amortization of deferred financing costs......................       697
                                                                       --------

          Total......................................................  $ 33,596
                                                                       ========


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...................................      1.65
                                                                       ========
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 128880 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, COUNTY OF CRAWFORD and COUNTY OF Justices 

KALKASKA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 128880 

 COA: 254180 
 Otsego CC: 02-010014-CZ 

COUNTY OF OTSEGO,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it appearing to this Court that the 

case of 46th Circuit Trial Court v Crawford County (Docket No. 128878) is pending on 

appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in 

the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in 

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. 

d1220 

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 28, 2005 

Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

JOHN PAUL LEWIS, 

No. 3:14-cv-01902-ST

Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

WASHINGTON COUNTY JAIL,

WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE,

HAROLD LLOYD LEWIS, and MICHAEL

A. SCHMIDT,

 Defendant.

MOSMAN, J., 

On December 22, 2014, Magistrate Judge Stewart issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [4] in the above-captioned case, recommending that Plaintiff’s 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [1] be granted, his complaint be dismissed with 

prejudice, and his Motion for Appointment of Counsel [3] be denied as moot. No objections 

were filed.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01902-ST Document 7 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 2
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Stewart’s recommendation, and I ADOPT the F&R [4] 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16th day of January, 2015. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman ___ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge

2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01902-ST Document 7 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 2