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

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

THOMAS CRAIG DAWSON, 

JEFF PREMO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Respondent. 

Mcshane, District Judge. 

6:15-cv-568-MC 

ORDER 

Petitioner filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

challenging his 1996 conviction for Felon in Possession of a 

Firearm. 

Respondent now moves to deny relief on the ground that 

petitioner did not file his petition within the time allowed 

by 28 u.s.c. § 2244. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a one year statute of limitations 

applies to petition's for habeas corpus relief. The statute 

begins to run on the date on which the judgment of conviction 

became final by the conclusion of direct review or the 

1 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00568-MC Document 38 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 3
expiration of the time for seeking direct review. 28 U.S>C § 

2244 (d(l) (A). Time elapsed after finality and before 

collateral filing, and time after final collateral disposition 

and before federal filing counts against the year. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d) (2); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9'h Cir. 

1999). 

The judgment challenged by petitioner in this proceeding 

was entered on August 23, 1996. Resp. Exhibit 101. 

Petitioner had 30 days to seek direct review, ORS 19.255(1), 

but he did not take a direct appeal. Therefore, the statute 

of limitations began to run on September 23, 1996. 

Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on 

September 7, 2010. Resp. Exhibit 102. The post-conviction 

court dismissed the petition as time-barred. The Oregon Court 

of Appeals affirmed and the Oregon Supreme Court denied 

review. The appellate judgment issued on April 29, 2015. 

Because petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief was 

not timely, it did not toll the federal limitations period 

under § 2244 (d) (2). Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 410 

(2005). 

Thus, petitioner had one year form August 23, 1996, 

excluding any time during which a properly filed petition for 

post-conviction relief was pending, to file a federal habeas 

corpus petition. Between August 23, 1996, the latest date on 

2 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00568-MC Document 38 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 3
which petitioner could have directly appealed his conviction 

, and April 6, 2015, the date on which petitioner filed his 

petition in this proceeding, 6,767 days elapsed, which exceeds 

the 365 days provided by the statute. 

Petitioner's Petition (#1) is denied on the grounds that 

it is time barred by the 1 year statute of limitations. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a judgment 

dismissing this proceeding with prejudice. 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, a certificate of 

appealability is denied. See, 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (2). 

DATED this _'}__ day of February, 2016. 

Michael Mcshane 

United States District Judge 

3 - ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00568-MC Document 38 Filed 02/09/16 Page 3 of 3
# L_2009270EN.01001801.xml

| 15.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 270/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 270/18

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 14 October 2009

on the extension of the mandate of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies and of the period of appointment of its members

(2009/757/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Whereas:

| (1) | The mandate of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) was renewed by Commission Decision 2005/383/EC (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The mandate of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE) was renewed by Commission Decision 2005/383/EC (1).

| (2) | The appointment of the members of the EGE was renewed for a period of 4 years by Commission Decision 2005/754/EC (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The appointment of the members of the EGE was renewed for a period of 4 years by Commission Decision 2005/754/EC (2).

| (3) | The current mandate of the EGE and the current period of appointment of its members therefore come to an end on 20 October 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The current mandate of the EGE and the current period of appointment of its members therefore come to an end on 20 October 2009.

| (4) | It is appropriate that the new Commission should review both the subject of the mandate of the EGE and the appointment of its members. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

It is appropriate that the new Commission should review both the subject of the mandate of the EGE and the appointment of its members.

| (5) | To enable the EGE to continue to function until new decisions on its mandate and on the appointment of its members are taken, the current mandate of the EGE and the current period of appointment of its members should be extended, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

To enable the EGE to continue to function until new decisions on its mandate and on the appointment of its members are taken, the current mandate of the EGE and the current period of appointment of its members should be extended,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The current mandate of the EGE, as provided for in Decision 2005/383/EC, is hereby extended until such time as that decision is replaced.

The current period of appointment of the members of the EGE, as provided for in Decision 2005/754/EC, is hereby extended until such time as that decision is replaced.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 21 October 2009.

Done at Brussels, 14 October 2009.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 127, 20.5.2005, p. 17.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 284, 27.10.2005, p. 6.

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 Genetic Resources Conservation Unit: Griffin, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Griffin, Georgia Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit People & Locations







Jeffrey Luke Doss
                        Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit

                        




                        
                        Collaborator
                        Phone: (770) 228-7267
                        
                        
                        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
#### Jeanne Servo, Respondent, v Bank of New York, Appellant, and 501 South Main Street Corp. et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[946 NYS2d 194]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Bank of New York appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Garvey, J.), dated April 27, 2011, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the motion of the defendant Bank of New York for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it is granted.

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped on a sidewalk near the entrance of a building owned by the defendant 501 South Main Street Corp. (hereinafter the owner). The defendant Bank of New York (hereinafter the appellant), which *733leased the ground floor of the building, met its prima facie burden of establishing that it owed no duty to the plaintiff. In support of its motion for summary judgment, the appellant submitted evidence, including the lease between the appellant and the owner, which demonstrated that the owner was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk and that the appellant had no control over or duty to maintain it *(see Hahn v Wilhelm,*54 AD3d 896 [2008]; *DePompo v Waldbaums Supermarket,*291 AD2d 528 [2002]; *Morrison v Gerlitzky,*282 AD2d 725 [2001]; *Discini v Richgold Assoc.,*272 AD2d 366 [2000]). Further, the appellant demonstrated that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition or assume a duty of care to the plaintiff *(cf. Gauthier v Super Hair,*306 AD2d 850 [2003]). In opposition, no triable issue of fact was raised.

The respondents’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2134]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice; withdrawal.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for Daviess County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas.

# DATES:

This withdrawal is effective September 7, 2021.

# ADDRESSES:

                        You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2134, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)                         *patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)                         *patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov;*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On May 24, 2021, FEMA published a proposed notice at 86 FR 27871, proposing flood hazard determinations for Daviess County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed notice.                          ( print page 50148)    

*Authority:*42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.                

Michael M. Grimm,

Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2021-19212 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LUIS ANGUIANO-AGUIRRE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72965

Agency No. A092-685-965

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Anguiano-Aguirre, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

JUN 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72965

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, and we review de novo the agency’s legal

determinations. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We

deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Anguiano-Aguirre’s

untimely asylum application was filed within a reasonable period of time given any

changed or extraordinary circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Dhital

v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008) (application filed 22 months after

expiration of lawful nonimmigrant status expired was not reasonable). 

Accordingly, his asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the gang member’s

threat to Anguiano-Aguirre did not rise to the level of persecution. See Hoxha v.

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats constituted

harassment rather than persecution). In addition, substantial evidence supports the

agency finding that Anguiano-Aguirre has not established a clear probability of

future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)

(possibility of future persecution too speculative); see also Hakeem v. INS, 273

F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is

weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live
3 08-72965

in the country without incident . . . or when the applicant has returned to the

country without incident.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Accordingly, his withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of AnguianoAguirre’s CAT claim because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that

he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of Mexican authorities if

returned to Mexico. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

401 

CAF 14-02222 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF AUBREY R.B. 

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

GENESEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ORDER

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 

CODY B., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.)

BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

COLLEEN S. HEAD, BATAVIA, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

JACQUELINE M. GRASSO, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BATAVIA. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R.

Adams, J.), entered November 14, 2014 in proceedings pursuant to,

inter alia, Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other

things, transferred the guardianship and custody of the subject child

to petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Family Court.

Entered: April 29, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RONALD MALCOMSON, an individual, No. 3:15-cv-02407-SB

Plaintiff, 

v.

DAIMLER NORTH AMERICAN ORDER

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;

DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA

LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

CONCENTRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.

a Texas corporation; GABLE HOFMAN, an 

individual; KARLA STEFFENSON, an 

individual; and JOHN DOES (#1-10), 

individuals, 

Defendants. 

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings & Recommendation (#24) on August 3,

2016, in which she recommends the Court grant in part and deny in part the Daimler Group's

motion to dismiss and grant the Daimler Group's motion to strike. The Daimler Group

1 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-02407-SB Document 28 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 3
Defendants have timely filed objections to the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now

before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings &

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the

Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered the Daimler Group's objections and conclude there is no basis

to modify the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the

record de novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings & Recommendation [24],

and therefore, the Daimler Group's Motion to Strike the Malcomson Declaration and attached

exhibit [19] is granted, and the Daimler Group's Motion to Dismiss [8] is granted in part and

denied in part as follows: 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

2 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-02407-SB Document 28 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 3
(1) the motion is denied as to Plaintiff's Fifth Claim for Relief (Intentional Interference

with Economic Relations); (2) the motion is granted as to Plaintiff's First Claim for Relief

(O.R.S. 659A.199), Second Claim for Relief (O.R.S. 659A.030(1)(f)), Third Claim for Relief

(common law wrongful discharge), and Fourth Claim for Relief (O.R.S. 659A.030(1)(g)). The

Third Claim for Relief is dismissed with prejudice. The First, Second, and Fourth Claims for

Relief are dismissed with leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2016. 

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

3 - ORDER

Case 3:15-cv-02407-SB Document 28 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 3
Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Agenda 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

2 Arizona Center, 400 N. 5th Street, 

12th Floor, Conf. Rooms A&B 

Phoenix, Arizona 

January 25, 2006 

Start 

Time TOPIC PERSON 

10:10 

a.m. 

Welcome and Administrative 

1. Introductions and Determination of Quorum (16) 

2. Approval of June 21-22, 2005 Meeting Minutes 

3. Approval of November 29-30, 2005 Minutes 

3. Review of Action Items 

4. Old Business 

Kurt Dongoske 

10:45 

Humpback Chub Recommendations 

- Comprehensive Plan Priorities & Sequencing (Feedback from 

TWG) 

- FY06 Funding Needs 

Glen Knowles 

11:40 

Warm water Non-Native Fish Workshop Proposal 

- Workshop Results 

- Preliminary FY06 Budget and Workplan 

Matt Andersen 

12:05 L U N C H 

1:12 FY06 Funding Surplus Æ Proposed Work and 

POTENTIAL ACTION 

John Hamill 

2:10 Sediment Augmentation Feasibility Report Tim Randle 

2:40 Review / Report on the Science Planning Process 

for FY 2007 - 2011 

Dave Garrett 

John Hamill 

3:10 B R E A K 

3:20 Review / Report on the Science Planning Process 

for FY 2007 - 2011 (cont) 

Dave Garrett 

John Hamill 

4:00 

WAPA/FFF/AGFD on WY06 Proposal 

- WAPA Recap Clayton Palmer 

4:15 Lees Ferry Trout Evaluation Bill Persons 

5:00 Wrap-up and Adjourn 
Technical Work Group Meeting 

Final Agenda 

Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program 

Technical Work Group 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

2 Arizona Center, 400 N. 5th Street, 

12th Floor, Conf. Rooms A&B 

Phoenix, Arizona 

January 26, 2006 

Start 

Time TOPIC PERSON 

8:05 

Welcome and Administrative 

 - Determination of Quorum (16 members) Kurt Dongoske 

8:10 PA Signatory Update Mike Berry 

8:20 Discussion on FY06 Funding Surplus John Hamill 

9:00 TCD Update Dennis Kubly 

10:00 B R E A K 

10:05 

Status of FY07-08 Budget & Workplan 

- Process and Schedule 

- Recap of Available Funds 

- USBR & GCMRC Administration 

- Monitoring and Research Project Development 

Dennis Kubly 

John Hamill 

11:05 The Paria River Mouth as an Experimental Humpback Chub Rearing 

Site 

Larry Stevens 

11:40 Glen Canyon Treatment Plan Mike Berry 

Kimberly Spurr 

12:15 Wrap-up and Adjourn