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
 Agricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research: Fort Collins, CO
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fort Collins, Colorado Center for Agricultural Resources Research Agricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research People & Locations







Shaimaa  Ibrahim
                        Agricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone:    
                        
                        
                        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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 7345

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DONTE BERNARD BAKER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00426

- JKB

- 1 )

Submitted : January 17, 2019 Decided: January 23, 2019

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Donte Bernard Baker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: In 2012, Donte Bernard Baker pleade d guilty to conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (2012); conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) (2012); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a d rug trafficking offense, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2012 ). After Baker’s first unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, he filed a motion in the district court captioned as a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). The district court recharacterized that motion as a § 2255 motion, and dismissed it as an unauthorized successive habeas motion. Baker now appeals. On appeal, Baker asserts that the district court erred in recharacterizing his motion without pro viding him the opportunity to respond to the proposed recharacterization. Here, the district court correctly determined that Baker’s motion was in substance a § 2255 motion, as he challenged his § 924(c) conviction rather than asserting that an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines lowered his applicable Guidelines range. Moreover, as Baker has already filed a § 2255 motion, the district court was not required to provide him notice of its intent to construe his motion as a § 2255 motion, as the court did not recharacterize it as a first § 2255 motion. See Castro v. United States , 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003) (when “court recharacterizes a pro se litigant’s motion as a first § 2255 motion,” it must provide notice of the intent to do so) (emphasis added).3 A ccordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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
 Conservation and Production Research Laboratory: Bushland, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Livestock Nutrient Management
                                    Soil and Water Management
                    Who We AreSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Bushland, Texas Conservation and Production Research Laboratory News





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

Calendarheadline bar 1 - Calendar
               2 - Latest News     August 1-5ASAE/CSAE Annual International MeetingOttawa, CanadaAugust 2-6SPIEDenver, COAugust 12 & 13XXVII International Basic Training Workshop/Bionumerics & Gelcompar II**August 31****Summer Crops Field Day****Bushland, TX**September 6Labor DaySeptember 28-30Wind Diesel Workshop [1]
                        2

                     Next >>


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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

BRYAN ALLAN FULLER, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

CAROLYNW. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Civ. No. 6:14-cv-01993-MC 

ORDER FOR REMAND 

IT IS SO ORDERED that the above-captioned case be reversed and remanded to the 

Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will reassess the claimant's symptoms as set forth in SSR 16-

3p and 20 CFR 416.929, reevaluate the claimant's residual functional capacity assessment, and 

reassess steps four and five with the assistance of a vocational expert, as necessary. In doing so, 

the ALJ shall take into consideration the claimant's 2013 psychological evaluation by Dr. Scott 

Alvord, PsyD (Tr. 698-716) and any potential limitations it may impose on the claimant's RFC. 

The Agency may also order additional neurocognitive testing, evaluations, or assessments of the 

claimant if it is deemed necessary to further develop the record (see Tr. 34, 221-224). 

I-ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01993-MC Document 23 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 2
The case is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Upon proper presentation, this Court will consider Plaintiffs application for reasonable 

attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this /Q day of August, 2016. 

2-0RDER 

Michael J. McShane 

United States District Judge 

Case 6:14-cv-01993-MC Document 23 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 2
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 Stress and Germplasm Development Research: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Projects
                        NP 301Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Business
               Main
               NP 301
               OBJECTIVE 1: Subobjective1A


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
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50929

Summary Calendar

 

SHELLY LEON BRYANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EDIE RUBALCABA, The State of Texas,

County of El Paso, District Clerk;

MARVIN PETERSEN, Chief Deputy Clerk;

PEDRO VALDEZ, Deputy Clerk; SEAN VASQUEZ,

Deputy Clerk,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-95-CV-270

- - - - - - - - - -

May 16, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Appellant argues that the district

court erred in dismissing his § 1983 action because his complaint

and amended complaint alleged sufficient facts to state claims

for violations of the Texas Open Records Act, his due process 
No. 95-50929

- 2 -

right of access to the courts, and his First, Fifth, Sixth, and

Fourteenth Amendment rights. 

Appellant argues that the district court erred in dismissing

as moot his claim regarding his state nunc pro tunc motions. 

Although the district court erred in considering information

outside of the pleadings in ruling on the Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(6) claim, the error was harmless because appellant may

not challenge the correctness of a state court ruling in a § 1983

action. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th

Cir. 1994).

We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion

concerning appellant’s other claims, and appellant’s brief, and

conclude that appellant has failed to raise a constitutional

issue. Appellant’s appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. We caution appellant that any additional frivolous

appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, appellant is further cautioned to review any

pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00152-CR

Miguel Gonzalez Mejia

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

430th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-1370-16-J

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 6, 2018
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

COREY PRITCHETT,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 2:15-cv-1724-MK

v. ORDER

OFFICER FAIRLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 98), 

and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude the report is 

correct.
2 –ORDER

Magistrate Judge Kasubhai’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 98) is adopted. 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2020.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________

Michael McShane

United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC Case No.: 3:15−cv−01773−AC

Plaintiff(s),

v. ORDER CONDITIONALLY

APPOINTING PRO BONO COUNSEL

FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE DOE−67.171.181.233, et al.

Defendant(s).

/

The Court hereby grants Plaintiff Petra Eloise Manis's Motion to Appoint Counsel [12] and

conditionally appoints David H. Madden as counsel of record for the purpose of working with defendant

for up to three (3) hours to address plaintiff's complaint.

Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the appointed attorney/law firm must file the Pro Bono

Appointment Response Form with the Court with the appropriate option checked.

If representation is denied due to a conflict of interest or other specified reason, the appointment

will be terminated and the Court may appoint substitute counsel.

For more information regarding pro bono forms, procedures, reimbursement of costs, or obtaining a

pro bono civil rights mentor attorney, please refer to the Pro Bono Program Procedures document

located on the Court's website or contact the Pro Bono Panel Administrator.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2016 /s/John V. Acosta

Honorable John V. Acosta

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01773-AC Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 3
Dallas Buyers Club, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC Case No.: 3:15−cv−01773−AC

Plaintiff(s),

v. PRO BONO APPOINTMENT

RESPONSE FORM

DOE−67.171.181.233, et al.

Defendant(s).

/

In response to the Court's Order Appointing Pro Bono Counsel, I hereby certify that:

Representation of Petra Eloise Manis for the purpose of working with defendant for up to

three (3) hours to address plaintiff's complaint is accepted. If appropriate, a Substitution of Counsel

will be filed to designate the responsible attorney continuing as counsel of record.

Termination of this appointment is requested based on the following conflict of interest:

No conflict of interest exists. However, termination of this appointment is requested for the

following reason(s):

DATED this day of .

Signature

Printed Name and Oregon State Bar No.

Case 3:15-cv-01773-AC Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC Case No.: 3:15−cv−01773−AC

Plaintiff(s),

v. NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PRO

BONO APPOINTMENT (SPECIFIC

APPOINTMENTS ONLY) DOE−67.171.181.233, et al.

Defendant(s).

/

As counsel of record appointed to represent Petra Eloise Manis under the Pro Bono Program for

the United States District Court, District of Oregon, I hereby certify that:

Representation of Petra Eloise Manis for the specific purpose of working with defendant for

up to three (3) hours to address plaintiff's complaint has been completed; therefore, my representation

under the Pro Bono Program is concluded and termination of the appointment is requested; or

I accept full representation of Petra Eloise Manis and will remain as counsel of record for the

duration of the case.

DATED this day of .

Signature

Printed Name and Oregon State Bar No.

Case 3:15-cv-01773-AC Document 13 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

NIGEL JACKSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 3:15-CV-01224-JE 

ORDER AWARDING A TT OR NEY 

FEES PER 28 USC 2412(d) 

It is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of $3,900.74 is awarded to Plaintiff. It is 

ordered that the attorney fee will be paid to Plaintiff's attorney, dependent upon 

verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 

2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made payable to 

Plaintiff's attorney, George J. Wall, and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's mailing address 

at: 1336 E. Burnside St., Suite 130, Portland OR 97132. If Plaintiff has such debt, then 

the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt shall be made payable to 

Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney's mailing address stated above. 

Page 3 - PETITION FOR EAJA FEES 

Case 3:15-cv-01224-JE Document 19 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 2
7th June

/s/ John Jelderks

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01224-JE Document 19 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2
Document

  
EXECUTION COPY
Exhibit 10.7 







Via E-Mail: scott.beattie@revlon.com
E. Scott Beattie
230 East Rivo Alto Drive 
Miami Beach, Florida 33139


Dear Scott:


This letter agreement confirms our mutual understanding that you will cease providing Advisory Services under the Amended and Restated Consulting Agreement, by and among you, Revlon, Inc. and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation, dated as of March 11, 2020 (the “Consulting Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Consulting Agreement.


Effective April 1, 2020, you will cease providing Advisory Services, and will cease receiving Advisory Services Pay. Advisory Services Pay for any Advisory Services rendered prior to April 1, 2020 shall be paid to you on the Regular Payment Date. The CEO may reinstate the Advisory Services and payment of the Advisory Service Pay when she deems appropriate, in her sole discretion, exercised reasonably.


The parties agree that cessation of Advisory Services under the Consulting Agreement pursuant to this letter agreement does not constitute a termination of the Consulting Agreement and does not trigger any rights or remedies pursuant to Section 8, or any other provision, of the Consulting Agreement.


All other terms of the Consulting Agreement will remain in place during the Term unless further amended by written agreement between the parties. 


Please indicate your agreement by signing below.


Sincerely,


/s/ Ely Bar-Ness


Ely Bar-Ness
Chief Human Resources Officer


I agree with and accept the terms as set forth above:






									
	/s/ E. Scott Beattie 
		Date: As of March 30, 2020

	E. Scott Beattie