alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6210

NEIL WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PRIME CARE MEDICAL; BEVERLY BILICH, L.P.N.; JODI CUNNINGHAM, Counselor; PAM FULTON, R.N.; JAMES D. SPENCER, Administrator, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-147) Submitted: May 10, 2000 Decided: May 19, 2000 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Neil Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michele Grinberg, FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, Charleston, West Virginia; Chad Marlo Cardinal,Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Neil Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’srecommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Prime Care Medical , No. CA-99-147 (N.D.W. Va., Jan. 25, 2000). 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
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ IN RE AVOCENT REDMOND CORP

.

__________________________ 201 3- 107 9 (Reexamination No. 90/ 010,62 8)

__________________________ Appeal from t he United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ Before P ROST , M OORE , and O’M ALLEY , Circuit Jud g es
. M OORE , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R
The Solicitor of the United Stat es Patent and Trad emark Office ( Solicitor ) moves without opposition to r emand this case to the United States Patent and Trademark Office , Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board)

. The Solicitor states that remand is require d for the Board to address Avocent Redmond Corp. ’s outstanding request to reopen prosecution

. Case: 13-1079 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2013IN RE AVOCENT REDMOND CORP

. 2 Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded

. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs

. F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly J an Horbaly Clerk

s 26
ISSUED AS A MANDATE : April 11, 2013 Case: 13-1079 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2013
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

CORRECT ITS OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION (DOC. 74.) - 1 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

STUART A. WEXLER 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Stuart.A.Wexler@usdoj.gov 

LEE F. LANGSTON 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Lee.F.Langston@usdoj.gov 

1000 SW Third Ave, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Facsimile: (503) 727-1117 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 3:15-CR-00438-JO 

 

Plaintiff,

v. 

WINSTON SHROUT, 

Defendant.

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

CORRECT ITS OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS FOR VINDICTIVE 

PROSECUTION (DOC. 74.) 

 The United States of America, by and through Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney 

for the District of Oregon, Stuart A. Wexler and Lee Langston, Trial Attorneys, Tax Division, 

hereby moves to correct its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive 

Prosecution. (Doc. 74.) 

 The Government’s pleading indicated that “records indicate two subpoenas were issued 

by the Grand Jury in this matter in late-February/early-March, 2015.” Doc. 74 at 8. This is 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 77 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 3
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

CORRECT ITS OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION (DOC. 74.) - 2 

factually incorrect. Government records indicate that the two subpoenas were issued in lateFebruary/early-March, 2016. The Government first became aware of the error through the 

defendant’s Reply, filed March 27, 2017. (Doc. 76.) The Government hereby apologizes for the 

error and requests the record reflect the appropriate change. 

 DATED this 28th day of March, 2017. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

United States Attorney 

/s/ Stuart A. Wexler 

STUART A. WEXLER 

LEE F. LANGSTON 

Trial Attorneys, Tax Division 

(202) 305-3167 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 77 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 3
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

CORRECT ITS OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

FOR VINDICTIVE PROSECUTION (DOC. 74.) - 3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 28, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to 

the attorney(s) of record for the defendant. Additionally, a copy of the foregoing was emailed to 

the defendant at milieannjones@gmail.com. 

/s/ Stuart A. Wexler 

Stuart A. Wexler 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 77 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE
MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,041
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,345
<INVENTORY>                                      1,584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   688
<PP&E>                                          13,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,586
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,400
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,989
<SALES>                                         25,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,302
<CGS>                                           12,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,566
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,305
<INCOME-TAX>                                       899
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,406
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,406
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
#### WALSH, Respondent, v. WALSH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March, 1896.)

Action by Anna Walsh against Andrew J. Walsh.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00834-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.H., a Child

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-20578

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order is AFFIRMED. 

We further assess costs of this appeal against T.H. and ORDER that T.B. recover her costs of the 

appeal from T.H.

SIGNED December 18, 2019.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keitus Leo HURT, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

No. 06-15895

Non-Argument Calendar.

June 15, 2007.

Dean S. Daskal, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Francis N. Ford, Adams & Ford, LLP, Eatonton, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before ANDERSON, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Keitus Leo Hurt (“Hurt”) appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); use of a place for the purpose of distributing a substance containing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) and (b); and possession with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of a substance containing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Hurt argues that there was insufficient evidence to allow a rational fact finder to conclude that the b eyonda-reasonable-doubt standard had been met. Upon *de novo*review, and after reviewing the briefs and record, we find that there was more than sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find Hurt guilty of the crimes with which he was charged. The testimony of Adam Hill, the only passenger in the car when Hurt was arrested, and the testimony of Connie Simms, Hurt’s former girlfriend who resided at the home where police found drugs that Hurt had stashed, both support the verdict. Moreover, the jury could have found Hurt’s testimony in his own defense incredible. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 49051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[212A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]


Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
Amendments in the State of Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the approval of Third Amendment to the 
Tribal-State Compact (Third Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the 
Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians (Tribe) and the State of Washington 
(State), and the Fourth Amendment to the Tribal-State Compact (Fourth 
Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the Stillaguamish Tribe of 
Indians and the State of Washington.

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2858495d44490640495a5c684a4149064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f28293879e93dc9a938086b2909b93dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>, (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 must 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 Third Amendment amends and restates the Tribe's Compact, 
adopts Appendix D, Gaming Station Transfers, and Appendix E, Limitation 
on Wagers, Credit, Facilities, Problem Gambling Resources and 
Contributions. The Fourth Amendment authorizes the Tribe to operate 
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 Amendments are approved.

Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2021-18822 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
WILBORi'! LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

TIM WILBORN, Attorney at Law - OSB # 944644 

tim@wilbornlaw.com 

P.O. Box 370578 

Las Vegas, NV 89137 

Voice: (702) 240-0184 

Fax: (503) 926-9133 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DEANNE WOOLDRIDGE, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3: 16-cv-00020-Kl 

ORDER 

Attorney fees in the amount of $4,559.90 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the 

Equal Access To Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Subject to any offset allowed under the Treasury 

Offset Program, payment of this award shall be made via check sent to Tim Wilborn's address: P.O. 

Box 370578, Las Vegas, NV 89137. In accordance with the fee assignment which Plaintiff has 

signed, payment shall be made in Tim Wilborn's name if no debt subject to offset exists. 

DATEDthis~dayof -Jttll ,2qJ'6.17 

Submitted on December 22, 2016 by: 

s/ Tim Wilborn 

TIM WILBORi'!, OSB # 944644 

(702) 240-0184 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER - Page I 

Case 3:16-cv-00020-KI Document 21 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 1
PAGE 1 – JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MATTHEW RAY LESOWSKE,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL1

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-2261-KI

JUDGMENT

Merrill Schneider

Schneider Kerr Law Offices

P.O. Box 14490 

Portland, OR 97293

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Billy J. Williams 

United States Attorney

Janice E. Hebert

1000 SW Third Ave., Ste. 600

Portland, OR 97204-2902

 1 Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to

Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill is substituted for Acting

Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit.

Case 3:15-cv-02261-KI Document 23 Filed 03/07/17 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – JUDGMENT

Sarah Moum

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

Social Security Administration

701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 2900 M/S 221A

Seattle, WA 98104-2075

Attorneys for Defendant

KING, Judge:

Based on the record, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the 

Commissioner is affirmed and this case is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 7th day of March_____, 20_17_.

/s/ Garr M. King___________

Garr M. King

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02261-KI Document 23 Filed 03/07/17 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

GREGORY A SHANAFELT, No. 03:14-cv-01722-ST

Plaintiff,

v. 

 

DAVID HOLLANDER, JEFF GERNER, of ORDER

SAIF CORP., THOMAS SHERIDAN of

EMPIRE PACIFIC RISK MANAGEMENT,

INC.,

 Defendant.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge,

Magistrate Judge Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#49) on March 6,

2015, in which she recommends that this Court grant Defendants' motions to dismiss and dismiss

this case with prejudice. 

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.

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

840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate

1 - ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01722-ST Document 53 Filed 04/16/15 Page 1 of 2
Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de

novo, I find no error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings & Recommendation [49].

Accordingly, Defendants' motions to dismiss [23, 27] are granted. Plaintiff's motion for

appointment of counsel [3] is denied as moot. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2015.

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01722-ST Document 53 Filed 04/16/15 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2029 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2029

           To reduce temporarily the duty on sodium bentazon.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 1998

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To reduce temporarily the duty on sodium bentazon.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON SODIUM BENTAZON.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new subheading:

``     9902.29.34      Sodium bentazon (3-                                                                      
                        Isopropyl)-1H-                                                                          
                        2,1,3-                                                                                  
                        benzothiadiazin-                                                                        
                        4(3H)-one-2,2-                                                                          
                        dioxide) (CAS No.                                                                       
                        50723-80-3)                                                                             
                        (provided for in                                                                        
                        subheading                                                                              
                        2934.90.11)......  5.0%         No change         No change         On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/2002            
                                                                                                                

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1694 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1694

To amend MAP-21 to improve contracting opportunities for veteran-owned 
            small business concerns, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2015

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Young of Alaska, and Mr. 
King of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend MAP-21 to improve contracting opportunities for veteran-owned 
            small business concerns, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness to Veterans for 
Infrastructure Investment Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.

    Section 1101(b) of MAP-21 (23 U.S.C. 101 note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) Veteran-owned small business concern.--The 
                term `veteran-owned small business concern' has the 
                meaning given the term `small business concern owned 
                and controlled by veterans' in section 3(q) of the 
                Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(q)).'';
            (2) in paragraph (3) by inserting ``and veteran-owned small 
        business concerns'' before the period at the end; and
            (3) in paragraph (4)(B)--
                    (A) in clause (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end;
                    (B) in clause (iii) by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(iv) veterans.''.
                                 <all>
```