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
 Range Management Research: Las Cruces, NM
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Comprehensive Publications
                    Research SummarySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




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

News and Eventsheadline bar News


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 COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10034

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS ROBERTO RIVAS HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:16-CR-527-1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Roberto Rivas Hernandez

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivas Hernandez has filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well 

as Rivas Hernandez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 2, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10034 Document: 00515060860 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2019
No. 18-10034

2

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-10034 Document: 00515060860 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2019
# C_2006135EN.01000501.xml

| 9.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/5

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)
   (2)

1

2

(2006/C 135/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

FINLAND

Operating licences revoked

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

| Name of air carrier | Address of air carrier | Permitted to carry | Decision effective since |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Utin Lento Oy | Utin lentoasema |
| Lentoportintie 83 |
| FIN-45410 Utti |

Name of air carrier

Address of air carrier

Permitted to carry

Decision effective since

Utin Lento Oy

Utin lentoasema

Lentoportintie 83

FIN-45410 Utti

passengers, mail, cargo

27.4.2006

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31.8.2005.

2

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON . 

RICHARD LEWIS BOEDIGHEIMER, 

Plaintiff, Civ. No. 6:14-cv-01250-CL 

V. OPINION AND ORDER 

SGT. DAVE OPEL, et al., 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated and proceeding prose, brings this action seeking damages 

for alleged violation ofthe Fourth and Eighth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 Defendants 

filed a motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke issued a Report and 

Recommendation on May 22, 2015, in which he recommended that this Court grant defendants' 

motion for summary judgment on all claims. The matter is now before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(l)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Because no objections to the Report and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court 

reviews only the legal principles de novo. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane); see also United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Upon review, this Court finds no error in Judge Clarke's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 41. 

1 Plaintiffs claims arise out of an arrest that occurred on August 2, 2012. Following arrest, plaintiff was convicted 

by jury of Assaulting a Public Safety Officer, ORS § 163.208, Resisting Arrest, ORS § 162.315, and Disorderly 

Conduct in the Second Degree, ORS § 166.025. See Dec!. of Gerald Warren 32-35, ECF No. 24-1. 

1 -OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01250-CL Document 43 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 2
CONCLUSION 

This Court ADOPTS Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 41, in full. 

Defendants' motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this {::::r day of June, 2015. 

2- OPINION AND ORDER 

\L-__ .__ l 

Michael J. McShane - United States District Judge 

Case 6:14-cv-01250-CL Document 43 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1178

In re: PHILLIP O’BRIANT , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 1:18

- cv - 02705

- GJH )

Submitted : June 3, 2019 Decided: June 11, 2019

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Phillip O’Briant, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Phillip O’Briant petitions for a w rit of mandamus, contending the district court erroneously denied his request to compel action by state judges. He asks this court to order the district court to grant his request. “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy

- Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires’; (2) peti tioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367, 380

- 81 (2004)). The writ of mandamus is not a subst itute for appeal. Will v. United States , 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). We conclude that O’Briant fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, although we grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. 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 the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
#### In the Matter of Alexandria N. Ruiz-Thomas, Appellant, v Jeanette Ruiz, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 606]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated March 2, 2011, as, after a hearing, denied her petition for sole legal and physical custody of the child, awarded her only joint legal custody of the child with the maternal grandmother, and awarded the maternal grandmother sole physical custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“In a custody proceeding between a parent and a nonparent, ‘the parent has the superior right to custody that cannot be denied unless the nonparent establishes that the parent has relinquished that right due to surrender, abandonment, persisting neglect, unfitness, or other like extraordinary circumstances’ ” *(Matter of Flores v Flores,*91 AD3d 869, 869-870 *860[2012], quoting *Matter of Dungee v Simmons,*307 AD2d 312, 312-313 [2003]). “The burden of establishing the existence of extraordinary circumstances is on the party seeking to deprive the natural parent of custody” *(Matter of Flores v Flores,*91 AD3d at 870; *Matter of Cambridge v Cambridge,*13 AD3d 443, 443-444 [2004]). “Where extraordinary circumstances are present, the court must then consider the best interests of the child in awarding custody” *(Matter of Flores v Flores,*91 AD3d at 870; *see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543, 548 [1976]; *Matter of Wright v Wright,*81 AD3d 740, 741 [2011]).

The Family Court properly determined that the maternal grandmother sustained her burden of establishing extraordinary circumstances in this case by showing that the mother surrendered the child to the maternal grandmother shortly after the birth of the child *(see Matter of Wright v Wright,*81 AD3d at 741; *Matter of Jumper v Hemphill,*75 AD3d 507, 508 [2010]; *Matter of Holmes v Glover,*68 AD3d 868, 869 [2009]). In addition, the maternal grandmother demonstrated that she, along with her husband, the child’s maternal grandfather, provided a home for the child that met all of his financial, educational, and emotional needs, with no contribution from the mother *(see Matter of Jumper v Hemphill,*75 AD3d at 508; *Matter of Gilchrest v Patterson,*55 AD3d 833, 833 [2008]).

Moreover, the Family Court’s determination that it is in the child’s best interest to award joint legal custody to the mother and maternal grandmother, while awarding sole physical custody to the maternal grandmother, is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we discern no basis to disturb it *(see Matter of Flores v Flores,*91 AD3d at 870; *Matter of Vargas v Vargas,*90 AD3d 1062, 1062 [2011]; *Matter of Jumper v Hemphill,*75 AD3d at 508; *Matter of LaBorde v Pennington,*60 AD3d 950, 951-952 [2009]; *Matter of Gilchrest v Patterson,*55 AD3d at 834). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
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
 Ames, Iowa
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Angela  Gibson
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        Administrative Assistant
                        Phone: (515) 337-7698
                        
                        
                        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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 6:15-CR- ){;L{ ....-JtA 

INDICTMENT 

V. 

Count 1: Felon in Possession of a Firearm 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(l) 

CLEMENTE PINEDA, 

Defendant. 

Forfeiture Allegation 

18 u.s.c. § 924(d) 

28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) 

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: 

COUNT 1 

(Felon in Possession of a Firearm) 

On or about May 5, 2015, in the District of Oregon, defendant CLEMENTE PINEDA 

having been previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 

one year, specifically: 

(1) Robbery in the Second Degree, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for 

Malheur County, Case Number 09011915C3, on or about August 3, 2009; and 

(2) Burglary in the Second Degree, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for 

Malheur County, Case Number 05116740C, on or about January 12, 2006; 

did knowingly and unlawfully possess the following firearm: a Taurus .357 caliber revolver, 

bearing serial number 5130534, which firearm had previously been shipped or transported in 

interstate or foreign commerce; 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)( 1 ). 

Indictment Page 1 
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 

Upon conviction of the offense alleged in Count One ofthis Indictment, defendant shall 

forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924( d), and Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 2461 (c), the firearm involved in that offense, including without 

limitation: a Taurus .357 caliber revolver, bearing serial number 5130534. 

, c. .lj). 

Dated this I , ) day of July 2015. 

Presented by: 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

·United States Attorney 

N~H~ Assistant United States Attorney 

Indictment 

A TRUE BILL. 

Page 2
PAGE 1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GLACIER FILMS (USA), INC., and 

GLACIER FILMS 1, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HUMBERTO ALVARADO TENORIO,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-01729-SB

ORDER

Michael H. Simon, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and 

Recommendation in this case on June 22, 2016. ECF 36. Judge Beckerman recommended that 

Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment be granted and a default judgment be entered in the 

amount of statutory damages of $750. No party has filed objections.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate’s findings and recommendations, “the court 

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

or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

If no party objects, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended 

Case 3:15-cv-01729-SB Document 39 Filed 07/13/16 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – ORDER

to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); 

United States. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that the 

court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but 

not otherwise”). 

Although review is not required in the absence of objections, the Act “does not preclude 

further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” 

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 

recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court review the magistrate’s findings 

and recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

No party having made objections, this Court follows the recommendation of the Advisory 

Committee and reviews Judge Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error on the 

face of the record. No such error is apparent. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge 

Beckerman’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF 36. Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment 

(ECF 33) is GRANTED. A judgment will be entered against Defendant, permanently enjoining 

him from infringing Plaintiffs’ rights in the movie American Heist and awarding $750 in 

statutory damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 13th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01729-SB Document 39 Filed 07/13/16 Page 2 of 2
**                                                                                                                                                                                                                              EXHIBIT        Exhibit        32**

**CERTIFICATION**
|                                  |                                                                                                                                                                                                  |        |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:                November 9, 2006 | /s/                George W.                Haligowski                        |        |
|                                  | George                W. Haligowski                                                                                                                                                              |   |
|                                  | Chairman                of the Board, President and                                                                                                                                              |   |
|                                  | Chief                Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                           |   |
| Date:                November 9, 2006 | /s/                Timothy M.                Doyle                               |        |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  | Timothy                M. Doyle                                                                                                                                                                                                        |   |
|                                  | Executive                Managing Director and                                                                                                                                                                                         |   |
|                                  | Chief                Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                 |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Balance Sheet or
Statement of Income are reported as 0 herein.
</LEGEND>


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         3,029
<SECURITIES>                                   7,523
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                   271
<INVENTORY>                                    8,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               28,657
<PP&E>                                         16,354
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 39,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,170
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,469
<OTHER-SE>                                     31,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   39,953
<SALES>                                        11,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11,879
<CGS>                                          6,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (46)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,138
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,105
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,033
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.054
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.054



</TABLE>