alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

ANGELIA HOBAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

3:15-CV-01786-HZ

vs. 

ORDER

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

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

amount of $6,362.31 shall be awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412. The parties agree that attorney fees 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 out to Plaintiff’s attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiff’s attorney’s office as follows: Merrill Schneider, P.O. Box 14490, Portland, 

OR 97293. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this _____ day of ___________________, 2016. 

_______________________________ 

Marco Hernandez 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01786-HZ Document 23 Filed 10/28/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Walter James HOVATTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Logan C. WIDDOWSON, individually; George Jacobs, individually, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 06-1521.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2007.

Decided: May 24, 2007.

Martin H. Schreiber II, Law Office of Martin H. Schreiber II, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. J. Joseph Cur-ran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, H. Scott Curtis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Walter James Hovatter appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Appellees in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and Maryland constitutional action. Hovatter argues on appeal that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendants because he did not have notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard on whether *Franks v. Delaware,*438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), precluded his claims. He also challenges the district court’s decision to limit the scope of his claims to May 2 and 3, 1994. Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. *Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,*863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,*477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A district *345court may grant summary judgment, even sua sponte, so long as the party against whom summary judgment is granted has “an adequate opportunity to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact.” *U.S. Dev. Corp. v. Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*873 F.2d 731, 735 (4th Cir.1989).

We have reviewed the briefs, joint appendix, and record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hovatter v. Widdowson,*No. l:03-cv02904-CCB, 2006 WL 890713 (D.Md. filed Mar. 29, 2006 & entered Mar. 30, 2006). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WINSTON SHROUT, 

Defendant. 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

3: l 5-cr-004 38-JO 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court to address defendant's document titled Plea in Bar and 

Demand for Written Bill of Particulars True Bill in Commerce. After careful review of the entire 

document, I am satisfied that it presents no legal issue to be resolved. To the extent the document 

can be construed as a motion, it is entirely lacking in merit and provides no basis upon which 

defendant could be entitled to relief. Accordingly, the motion[# 23], to the extent it is a motion, is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this .. ~A"day of April, 2016. 

ORDER 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 30 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30954

Conference Calendar

 

IDA MAE WILLIAMS LEWIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ENTERGY GULF STATES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CV-252

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

February 20, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ida Mae Williams Lewis appeals the district court’s

dismissal of her pro se, in forma pauperis, civil rights

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. Lewis’s motion to strike Entergy Gulf States’s motion

to dismiss the complaint that was filed in the district court is

DENIED.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim. Blackburn v. City of

Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995). Lewis has not
No. 01-30954

-2-

challenged the district court’s reasons for dismissing her

complaint. Accordingly, it is as if Lewis had not appealed the

judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Lewis’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

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

the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION DENIED.
ACCEPTED

04-15-00414-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

9/10/2015 4:31:13 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 9/10/2015 4:31:13 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
Filed 2/5/21 P. v. Miller CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MASON GERALD MILLER,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B306230

(Super. Ct. No. YA100157)

(Los Angeles County)

Police officers ordered Mason Gerald Miller to stop 

the car he was driving. Miller initially complied with the officers’

commands, but then sped away, driving across medians, onto 

sidewalks, and into oncoming traffic. After his car was disabled, 

Miller got out and fled on foot. Officers eventually caught and 

arrested him. 

Miller pled guilty to evading a peace officer (Veh. 

Code, § 2800.2), and admitted that he had suffered a prior 

“strike” conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 

subds. (a)-(d)). The trial court sentenced him to two years eight

months in state prison. 
2

We appointed counsel to represent Miller in his 

appeal. After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening 

brief that raises no arguable issues. On November 13, 2020, we 

advised Miller by mail that he had 30 days within which to 

submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We 

have not received a response. 

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied 

that Miller’s attorney fully complied with his responsibilities and 

that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

TANGEMAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.
Amy N. Carter, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benjamin DeJesus, Appellant.

Defense counsel failed to object to the trial court’s instructions to the jury concerning flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Therefore, the defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review as a matter of law *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467). Reversal of the judgment of conviction is not warranted in the interest of justice.

We have examined the defendant’s other contentions regarding the propriety of the charge to the jury and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law or lacking in merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             153,891
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,758,705
<ALLOWANCES>                                       115,000
<INVENTORY>                                      2,904,699
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,814,435
<PP&E>                                           2,430,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,861,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,805,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,392,826
<BONDS>                                             53,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           125,315
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,918,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,805,313
<SALES>                                          8,687,955
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,687,955
<CGS>                                            4,954,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,948,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  88,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    696,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23,355
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                673,165
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       673,165
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .05



</TABLE>
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1964

To provide for the sale of certain public land in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada,

to the Clark County Department of Aviation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 21, 1998

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. BRYAN) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

A BILL

To provide for the sale of certain public land in the Ivanpah

Valley, Nevada, to the Clark County Department of Aviation.

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 ‘‘Ivanpah Valley Airport

5 Public Land Transfer Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

7 AVIATION.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding sections 202 and

9 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

10 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712, 1713), the Secretary of the Inte-
2

•S 1964 IS

1 rior shall convey, under such terms and conditions as the

2 Secretary considers appropriate, all right, title, and inter3 est of the United States in and to the public land identi4 fied for disposition on the map entitled ‘‘Ivanpah Valley,

5 Nevada-Airport Selections’’, numbered lll, and dated

6 lllll, to the Department of Aviation of Clark

7 County, Nevada, for the purpose of developing an airport

8 facility and infrastructure.

9 (b) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The Secretary shall en10 sure that the map described in subsection (a) is on file

11 and available for public inspection in the offices of the Di12 rector, and the Las Vegas District, of the Bureau of Land

13 Management.

14 (c) PHASED CONVEYANCE.—

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall convey

16 the public land described in subsection (a) in small

17 parcels over a period of up to 20 years, as is re18 quired to carry out the phased construction and de19 velopment of the airport facility and infrastructure.

20 (2) APPRAISAL.—Not later than 180 days after

21 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

22 shall ensure that an appraisal of the fair market

23 value is conducted for each parcel of public land to

24 be conveyed.
3

•S 1964 IS

1 (3) PAYMENT OF FAIR MARKET VALUE.—A

2 parcel shall be conveyed by the Secretary on pay3 ment by the Department of Aviation of Clark Coun4 ty, Nevada, to the Secretary, of the fair market

5 value of the parcel, as determined under paragraph

6 (2).

7 (d) WITHDRAWAL.—The public land described in

8 subsection (a) is withdrawn from the operation of the min9 ing and mineral leasing laws of the United States.

Æ
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
 Foodborne Toxin Detection and Prevention Research: Albany, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Albany, California Western Regional Research Center Foodborne Toxin Detection and Prevention Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications
- IACUC Summaries
- Aflatoxin Workshop Archive
- Antifungal Publications

Collaborations The Foodborne Toxin Detection and Prevention Research has a long and productive history of collaborative research involving stakeholders.  Current collaborators and projects:  Driving Insect-Microbe Interactions by Natural Immune-Modulators: a Novel Tool for Insect Rearing and Control  Quantifying Foodborne Pathogen Prevalence in Wild Birds Across Species and Landscape Types  Novel Natural Antibacterial Agents/Formulas for Improving Safety, Quality, and Health Benefits of Fresh Produce  Development of Detection Technologies and Therapeutics for Botulinum Neurotoxins


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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                          <C>                
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996      
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996      
<CASH>                                         335              
<SECURITIES>                                   0                
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,658            
<ALLOWANCES>                                   38                
<INVENTORY>                                    3,263            
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6,726            
<PP&E>                                         7,454            
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,453            
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,634            
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,314           
<BONDS>                                        0                
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          6,589            
<PREFERRED>                                    0                
<COMMON>                                       (2,244)          
<OTHER-SE>                                     0                
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,634            
<SALES>                                        19,816           
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,816           
<CGS>                                          15,318           
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,621            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (303)             
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             252              
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                928              
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (335)            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            593              
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                
<CHANGES>                                      0                
<NET-INCOME>                                   593              
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .17              
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        



</TABLE>
Case 3:15-cv-02228-BR Document 27 Filed 06/21/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

CIVIL MINUTES

Case No.: 3:14-cv-01827-MO Date of Proceeding: July 28, 2016

Case Title: Powell v. Adlerhorst International, Inc., et al

Presiding Judge: Hon. Michael W Mosman Courtroom Deputy: Dawn Stephens

Dawn_Stephens@ord.uscourts.gov

Telephone number (503) 326-8024

Reporter: Bonita Shumway Tape No: 

DOCKET ENTRY:

Order Argument held.

Court Exhibit #1 and #2 identified, received and attached. 

Taking under advisement Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [118] as stated on the record. 

The parties are directed to brief the following: Whether there is identity of issues between the particular

negligence theories advanced by Plaintiff in this case (see Jury Instruction #15) and the Jury's answer to question

#8 on the verdict form regarding product liability. 

Relatedly, the parties can also brief whether identity of issues can also result in issue preclusion and judgment for

Defendant. Parties are directed to confer regarding a briefing schedule and submit the schedule to the Court by

8/3/2016. Parties are then directed to submit simultaneous briefing in accordance with that schedule. 

PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL

Robert E. Barton Joe R. Traylor

cc: { } All counsel DOCUMENT NO: 

Civil Minutes Honorable Michael W Mosman

Revised 3/15/96

Case 3:14-cv-01827-MO Document 127 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
Exhibit 23
/Letterhead/
                      Schvaneveldt & Company
                   Certified Public Accountant
                 275 East South Temple Suite #300
                    Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
                          (801) 521-2392


Darrell T. Schvaneveldt, C.P.A.



               Consent of Darrell T. Schvaneveldt
                       Independent Auditor




     I consent to the use, of my report dated May 2, 2000, on the
financial statements of Potenco, Inc., (a development stage
company), dated December 31, 1999, included herein and to the
reference made to me.



/S/ Schvaneveldt & Company
Salt Lake City, Utah
May 30, 2000
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

          - [212A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice publishes the approval of Sixth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Squaxin Island Tribe (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).

# DATES:

The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240,                         *paula.hart@bia.gov,*                         (202) 219-4066.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701*et seq.,*                     the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the Secretary. The Amendment authorizes the Tribe to engage in sports wagering at the Tribe's class III gaming facility, updates the Compact to reflect this change in various sections, and incorporates Appendix S, Sports Wagering. The Amendment is approved.                

Bryan Newland,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2021-18815 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4337-15-P