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
 Aerial Application Technology Research: College Station, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Website Imagesheadline bar No pages to list.


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
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00065-CR

EX PARTE CHESTER SINCLAIR

On Appeal from the

227th District Court of Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1997CR3391W1

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 12, 2024
Page 1 — ORDER granting motion to reduce sentence

United States District Court

District of Oregon

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Eduardo Segura,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cr-00357-HZ-1

Order granting motion to reduce 

sentence

Hernández, Chief United States District Judge:

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion to reduce sentence 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Based on the filings to date and the agreement of 

the parties, and after full consideration of the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a), the Court finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction of Defendant’s sentence to Time Served. Thus, the sentence is hereby 

amended to a term of: Time Served in this case only (i.e., 1:14-cr-00357-HZ-1).

The Court concludes that the defendant’s release under this order will not pose 

a danger to any other person or the community, especially in light of the RRC 

Case 1:14-cr-00357-HZ Document 72 Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 — ORDER granting motion to reduce sentence

placement ordered in Segura’s 2018 case. In a separate order, in case 3:18-cr-00251-

HZ-2, Segura will remain on supervised release and reside in the RRC as indicated 

in the amended judgement in that 2018 case.

The sentence reduction in this case is consistent with the currently applicable 

U.S. Sentencing Commission policy statements.

The Court therefore GRANTS the Joint Motion to Reduce Sentence.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that an amended judgment and commitment order 

shall be prepared and entered forthwith in this case only (i.e., 1:14-cr-00357-HZ-1), 

in accordance with this decision.

Dated this ______ day of December, 2020.

 

Hon. Marco A. Hernández

Chief United States District Court Judge

22

.d®rAJ ~ \ ~ 

Case 1:14-cr-00357-HZ Document 72 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 2
Kathryn Tassinari, OSB # 80115 

Brent Wells, OSB # 85403 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

kathrynt50@comcast.net 

Of Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CESAR A. IBARRA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

-~~~~--=-~~=='--~~~ Defendant ) 

Case No. 6:15-cv-00985-PA 

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY 

FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA & COSTS 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 1920 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $4,414.35 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs of $400.00, for the filing fee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1920. 

Payment of this award shall be paid via check made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's 

attorneys at Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C., 474 Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 

97401. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney if the 

commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the government through the federal 

treasury offset program. There are no expenses to be paid 9erein. 

·~ re( . ' 

Dated this day of February, 2017< ~-/-/ 

~~-/-/~"'°---~~~~-

PRESENTED BY: 

s/ Kathryn Tassinari 

Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C. 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 6:15-cv-00985-PA Document 27 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 1
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF) People & Locations







Cameron  Martin
                        Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)

                        




                        
                        Microbiologist
                        Phone: (785) 712-3886
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
# EUR-Lex - 52006AP0482 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52006AP0482

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive) (COM(2005)0505 - C6-0346/2005 - 2005/0211(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 314 E , 21/12/2006 P. 0086 - 0086 *

P6_TA(2006)0482

Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Directive) (COM(2005)0505 — C6-0346/2005 —2005/0211(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2005) 0505) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0346/2005),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0373/2006),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
(17 Misc. Rep. 310)

#### GARFIELD NAT. BANK v. KIRCHWEY.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 30, 1896.)

Pleading—Answer—Stating Defense and Counterclaim.

Where an answer contains several paragraphs, separately numbered, one of which recites that defendant “further answering by way of defense,” etc., and another that defendant “further answering by way of counterclaim,” etc., such paragraphs properly plead new matter and counterclaim, and a motion that defendant be required to serve amended answer setting out the affirmative matter “in such manner as to enable plaintiff to ascertain whether the same is intended to be pleaded by way of defense or counterclaim” should he denied.

Appeal from special term.

Action by the Garfield National Bank against George W. Kirchwey. From an order granting a motion to compel defendant to make his amended answer more definite and certain, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN WYCK, 0. J., and CONLAN, J.

Hector M. Hitcbings, for appellant.

John J. Adams, for respondent.

VAN WYCK, C. J.

The defendant’s original answer labeled his affirmative plea as “a defense, set-off, recoupment, cause of action, and counterclaim to the matters alleged in the complaint,” and to this plaintiff objected, and properly sought and obtained on motion an order compelling defendant to make his answer more definite and certain by separately stating each and every defense or counterclaim. This order the defendant had fully obeyed when he served an amended answer, by the second subdivision of which he set forth as follows: “Further answering by way of defense,” and by the third subdivision of which he says: “Further answering by way of counterclaim.” The first is an allegation of new matter *358by way of defense, and the latter is good pleading by way -of counterclaim, and each is properly labeled. To the first, plaintiff, may be compelled to reply on defendant’s application; and to the latter he will be in default unless he replies; and either or both are open to his demurrer, for each is fully stated in separate, subdivisions of the answer, properly numbered and folioed. However, plaintiff sought and obtained the order from which this appeal is taken, directing defendant to serve another and further amended answer, setting out the affirmative matter “in such manner as to enable plaintiff to ascertain whether the same is intended to be pleaded by way of defense or counterclaim.” The plaintiff had already pleaded the new matter as a defense and as counterclaim', and this he had the right to do under the Code, provided he pleaded them separately, fully stating each in a separate subdivision of the answer, properly numbered and folioed. This second motion should have.been denied.

The order is reversed, with costs, and the original motion denied, with $10 costs.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99


                           PHONETEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                        VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                 (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                   ----------  ---------------------------------------   ----------
                                                  ADDITIONS
                                     BALANCE   --------------------------
                                       AT         CHARGED TO       FROM    DEDUCTIONS    BALANCE
                                    BEGINNING  COSTS, EXPENSES   ACQUIRED  RELATING TO   AT END
                                     OF YEAR    OR TAX BENEFIT   COMPANY   WRITE-OFFS    OF YEAR
                                   ----------  ---------------   --------  -----------   ----------
<S>                                <C>         <C>               <C>       <C>           <C>
Year ended December 31, 1995
Allowances deducted from related
  balance sheet accounts:
    Accounts Receivable                   $44        ($4)                                   $40
    Deferred Tax Assets                 1,913      4,335                                  6,248
    Intangible Assets                   1,255      2,537                                  3,792


Year ended December 31, 1996
Allowances deducted from related
  balance sheet accounts:
    Accounts Receivable                    40         92                       ($40)         92
    Deferred Tax Assets                 6,248      3,455                                  9,703
    Intangible Assets                   3,792      7,768                     (1,368)     10,192


Year ended December 31, 1997
Allowances deducted from related
  balance sheet accounts:
    Accounts Receivable                    92        267           $148                     507
    Deferred Tax Assets                 9,703      3,054                                 12,757
    Intangible Assets                  10,192     15,528                                 25,720
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,813
<SECURITIES>                                    15,899
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (480)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,521
<PP&E>                                           4,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,820)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,383
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,498
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,959
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,811
<CGS>                                            5,532
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,532
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,912
<INCOME-TAX>                                       805
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,107
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,107
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
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
 Houston, Texas
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Houston, Texas People & Locations







Robert  Waterland

                                                                (PhD)
                        Houston, Texas

                        




                        
                        Nutrition Scientist
                        Phone: (713) 798-0304
                        
                        
                        Fax: (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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter J. O’Reilly, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1], [2]) arising out of his removal of certain property from the Lewis County Clerk’s office. Defendant claims, and we agree, that the court erred in denying him a competency hearing pursuant to CPL article 730; that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction under the second count of the indictment; and that the court erred in limiting his examination of a defense witness.

There was insufficient evidence of defendant’s intent to steal property consisting of a public record. The property in question, a Surrogate’s Court file, was personally returned by defendant prior to his arrest and shortly after the taking. Thus, there was no evidence that defendant intended permanently to withhold or exercise control over the file or to acquire or deprive the owner of its economic benefit (Penal Law § 155.00 [3], [4]; § 155.05 [1]).

The court erred in precluding defendant’s examination of his witness. Defendant called a county legislator to testify about a conversation in which defendant had complained about a title searcher’s operation of a profit-making business on taxpayers’ property, viz., the County Clerk’s office. The proffered testimony, excluded by the court as immaterial and irrelevant, bore directly and probatively on the issue of defendant’s motive and intent in removing the title searcher’s file. To deny defendant’s evidence on the crucial issue of his state *980of mind was error *(People v Hoyt,*92 AD2d 1079; *People v Stewart,*37 AD2d 908, 909) and defendant is entitled to a new trial on that charge.

Finally, it was error for the court to deny defendant a competency hearing and summarily to declare him competent. The psychiatric examination ordered by the court resulted in differing opinions as to his competency. The court was thus bound to conduct a hearing on that issue (CPL 730.30 [4]). Additionally, the court was bound to conduct a hearing at defendant’s clear request (CPL 730.30 [2]). "Once the procedure mandated by CPL article 730 had been invoked, the defendant was entitled to a full and impartial determination of his mental capacity” *(People v Armlin,*37 NY2d 167, 172; *see, People v Wright,*105 AD2d 1088).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Lewis County Court, Cunningham, J. — grand larceny, third degree, two counts.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Schnepp, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 180 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 180

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow married individuals 
  to contribute to an IRA even if their spouse is a participant in a 
                             pension plan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 1997

Mrs. Hutchison introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow married individuals 
  to contribute to an IRA even if their spouse is a participant in a 
                             pension plan.

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

SECTION 1. IRA ALLOWED FOR SPOUSES WHO ARE NOT ACTIVE PLAN 
              PARTICIPANTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 219(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``or the individual's spouse''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1996.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of County of Erie, Respondent, v Richard F. Daines, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, et al., Appellants.

[945 NYS2d 889]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered April 1, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to CELR article 78. The judgment granted the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs (see *Matter of County of Niagara v Daines,*91 AD3d 1288 [2012]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.