alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6897

HERMAN EUGENE JACKSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

KENNETH L. OSBORNE, Warden, M.C.T.C.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District

Judge. (CA-05-405-TSE)

Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 28, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman Eugene Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Herman Eugene Jackson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Jackson has not demonstrated error in the

district court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, we deny Jackson’s

motion for a jury trial, deny a certificate of appealability, and

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

January 20‐21, 2015

List of Attachments

   

No. Attachments

Presenter /

Author

1 Project B: Streamflow, Water Quality, and Sediment Transport in the Colorado

River Ecosystem PPT

David Topping

2 Sandbars and Sediment Storage in Marble and Grand Canyons: Response to

Recent High‐flow Experiments and Long‐term Trends PPT

Paul Grams

3 Project J Summary: Conditions and Processes affecting sand resources at

archaeological sites PPT

Joel Sankey

4 Cultural Site Monitoring in Glen and Grand Canyons PPT Brian Collins

5 Developing Riparian Vegetation Flow Response Guilds in the Grand Canyon PPT Daniel Sarr

6 Southern Paiute Vegetation and Cultural Resource Monitoring Program PPT Charley Bulletts

7 Chute Falls Translocation Update PPT Kirk Young

8 Humpback Chub Translocations to Shinumo and Havasu Creeks, Grand Canyon

National Park PPT

Emily Omana

Smith

9 Bright Angel Creek Non‐Native Trout Reduction Grand Canyon National Park

PPT

Brian Healy

Clay Nelson

10 Native and Nonnative Interactions; Factors Influencing Predation and

Competition PPT

David Ward

11 Invertebrate Drift in Glen Canyon 2007‐2013 PPT Ted Kennedy

12 Natal Origins of Rainbow Trout: Glen Canyon and Marble Canyon PPT Josh Korman

13 Humpback Chub in the Colorado river: Status and Trends of Aggregations,

Changes in Range PPT

Bill Persons

14 Early Life History of Humpback Chub: Patterns and Potential Drivers PPT Charles Yackulic

15 Biological Opinion Trigger Update: January 2015 PPT Scott VanderKooi

16 Glen Canyon Physical Environment Update – Water Quality, Tributary

Influences & Channel Analyses & Flows PPT

Ted Melis

17 Quagga Mussel Risk Assessment PPT Ted Kennedy

18 Rainbow Trout Growth, Condition, Population Dynamics and Modeling in Glen

Canyon PPT

Mike Yard

19 Drift‐Foraging and Bioenergetics Growth Model for Rainbow Trout in the Lees

Ferry Tailwater PPT

Mike Dodrill
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.3

                                 CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of National
Processing, Inc. (the "COMPANY"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year-ended
December 31, 2002 (the "REPORT") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 19, 2003

                                /s/ David E. Fountain
                                ---------------------
                                Name: David E. Fountain
                                Title: Senior Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer
# C_2009072EN.01002301.xml

| 26.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/23

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5364 — Iberia/Vueling/Clickair)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 72/02)

On 9 January 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in Spanish and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5364. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32009M5364. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001000695
<NAME> SYNC RESEARCH,INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (307)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,364
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,328
<PP&E>                                           9,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,227)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,251
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,456
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,754
<SALES>                                          9,511
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,511
<CGS>                                            5,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,024)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,026)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,026)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.87)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


EX-23
                                   EXHIBIT 23




                                  [LETTERHEAD]

The Board of Directors
Choices Entertainment Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-44343 and 33-87016) on Form S-8, of Choices Entertainment Corporation of
our report dated April 28, 2000 relating to the balance sheet of Choices
Entertainment Corporation as of December 31, 1999, and the related statements
of income, accumulated deficit, and cash flows for the year ended December
31, 1999 and 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual
report on Form 10-KSB of Choices Entertainment Corporation.

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has
suffered recurring losses from operations and has a net working capital
deficiency. Those conditions raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

                                        /s/ Miller and Co.
                                        Certified Public Accountants

Santa Monica, California
April 28, 2000
# L_2010273DE.01001801.xml

| 19.10.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 273/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 273/18

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 2009/77/EG der Kommission vom 1. Juli 2009 zur Änderung der Richtlinie 91/414/EWG des Rates zwecks Aufnahme der Wirkstoffe Chlorsulfuron, Cyromazin, Dimethachlor, Etofenprox, Lufenuron, Penconazol, Triallat und Triflusulfuron

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 172 vom 2. Juli 2009
  . Berichtigte Fassung im
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 196 vom 28. Juli 2010
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 172 vom 2. Juli 2009

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 196 vom 28. Juli 2010

Im Anhang, in Nummer 293, Spalte „Sonderbestimmungen“ Teil B Absatz 3 vierter Gedankenstrich:

anstatt:

| „— | weitere Informationen zum Risiko für fischfressende Säugetiere und das Langzeitrisiko für Säugetiere.“ |
| --- | --- |

„—

weitere Informationen zum Risiko für fischfressende Säugetiere und das Langzeitrisiko für Säugetiere.“

muss es heißen:

| „— | weitere Informationen zum Risiko für fischfressende Säugetiere und das Langzeitrisiko für Regenwürmer.“ |
| --- | --- |

„—

weitere Informationen zum Risiko für fischfressende Säugetiere und das Langzeitrisiko für Regenwürmer.“

---
#### In the Matter of Edmund J. Cannistra et al., Respondents, v Town of Putnam Valley, Appellant.

The Supreme Court weighed and considered all the relevant facts and circumstances in determining whether to grant or deny leave to serve a late notice of claim. Its decision is well within the parameters of the discretion reserved to it by General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) and, accordingly, will not be disturbed.

The record shows that the infant petitioner was severely injured when a car in which he was a passenger collided with a truck parked partially on the shoulder and partially on the traffic lane of Peekskill Hollow Road, a county road. The situs of the accident is within the boundaries of Putnam County and the Town of Putnam Valley. The counsel retained by the infant’s parents served a timely notice of claim on Putnam County. After the statutory 90-day period in which to timely serve a notice of claim expired, further investigation disclosed that the town is also responsible for monitoring traffic and parking at the situs of the accident. While counsel may have been more diligent in making inquiries that would have revealed the possible liability of the town, an excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which a claim should be asserted may be accepted, where, as in this case, prompt application for relief is made after discovery of the error *(cf. Matter of Morris v County of Suffolk,*88 *802AD2d 956, *affd*58 NY2d 767). The town has not demonstrated that the delay in serving the notice of claim has prejudiced it in investigating and preparing a defense. We note the existence of a very detailed accident report and diagram, prepared by an officer of the town’s police department, after an on-the-scene investigation. This report and diagram sufficed to furnish the town with the ability to investigate the relevant factors contributing to the accident in order to prepare a defense. The town had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the petitioners’ claims at the time it received the instant application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, which was made within five months after the expiration of the 90-day period. This was a reasonable time, particularly since there is no evidence that there has been any subsequent change at the situs of the accident which might hinder the investigation or defense of this action *(see, Matter of Edwards v Town of Delaware,*115 AD2d 205, 206; *Beatty v County of Saratoga,*74 AD2d 662, 663, *appeal dismissed*53 NY2d 939; *Monge v City of New York Dept. of Social Servs.,*95 AD2d 848). Absent a showing that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting the petitioners’ application, the judgment is affirmed. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
# L_2009312EN.01007301.xml

| 27.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 312/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/73

---

COUNCIL JOINT ACTION 2009/854/CFSP

of 20 November 2009

amending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 14 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 25 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 25 November 2005, the Council adopted Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP on establishing a European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah) (1).

| (2) | On 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/862/CFSP (2) amending and extending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP until 24 November 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 10 November 2008, the Council adopted Joint Action 2008/862/CFSP (2) amending and extending Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP until 24 November 2009.

| (3) | Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP should be further extended until 24 May 2010, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP should be further extended until 24 May 2010,

HAS ADOPTED THIS JOINT ACTION:

Article 1

Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP is hereby amended as follows:

| 1. | Article 13(1) is replaced by the following:

  ‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mission for the period from 25 November 2009 to 24 May 2010 shall be EUR 1 120 000’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 13(1) is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mission for the period from 25 November 2009 to 24 May 2010 shall be EUR 1 120 000’;

| 2. | second paragraph of Article 16 is replaced by the following:
  ‘It shall expire on 24 May 2010.’; |
| --- | --- |

2.

second paragraph of Article 16 is replaced by the following:

‘It shall expire on 24 May 2010.’;

| 3. | Article 17 is replaced by the following:

  ‘Article 17
  Review
  This Joint Action shall be reviewed by 15 April 2010.’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 17 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 17

Review

This Joint Action shall be reviewed by 15 April 2010.’.

Article 2

This Joint Action shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Joint Action shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2009.

For the Council

The President

E. ERLANDSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 327, 14.12.2005, p. 28.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 306, 15.11.2008, p. 98.

2

---
 The CRAHG is requested to meet a

provide any budget issues/concerthe January 28-29, 2014, Annual Reporting Meeting.

 Including the need for tribal partic

at the meeting, and tribal and cultvalues topics that should be cover
 Reclamation report on: 

1) progress made toward revising the existing 

programmatic agreement 

2) efforts/perspective of how they have remain

compliance with the existing programmatic agreement.

3) compliance with the Memorandum of Agre

regarding the implementation of the 2012 ahigh flow events. How is Reclamation trackinconcerns raised by the Tribes regarding the 

 Reclamation scheduled a meeting for 12 Feb

2014. CRAHG would like to see greater transpand communication from Reclamation.
 National Park Service report on:

4) Colorado River historic properties 

monitoring.

5) opportunity to review the excavat

report produced by MNA and GraCanyon NPS performed in 2010.

› Funding issues; Reclamation conside

funding through GCDAMP

6) Glen Canyon NPS report on progr

made at Minus 9 Mile terrace site.
 GCMRC report on:

7) cultural resource monitoring program 

progress toward successful integratioTribal values.

8) progress in expanding the sediment 

monitoring below Diamond Creek arequested by Hualapai Tribe

9) updates on what is happening with trout/chub numbers and the triggeri

criteria.

 Reported on during GCMRC’s meeting
10. What is the future of the cultural 

resources program within the GCD

 Focus on physical and biological 

programs; cultural program morphinto physical/geomorphological

 Sense of increasing disenfranchise

by Tribal representatives
 Law of Unintended Consequences

 Two possible factors: economic an

sociocultural.

› GCMRC Science Program – grounded 

Western positivist/materialist view of ecosystem.

› USGS culture of science – privileges 

quantitative data over qualitative

› USGS does not perceive a role for Trib
 USGS science program

› Compartmentalizes resource categor› Deconstructs individual aspects of the 

resource

 Lacking holistic ecosystem perspec

Tribal perspective more holistic

 No humanistic values represented 

science program
 TWG discuss importance of cultura

resources in program as it relates to 2015/2016 work plan and budget

 Need strong DOI leadership to ens

equitable tribal participation in scieprogram.

 Need a more holistic ecosytem

perspective (Tribes have been advocating for this all along).
 Develop synthesis project that evalua

the management of other river systemthe involvement of Native American/indigenous peoples.

 Fund a outside panel of experts to wo

with the Tribes and GCMRC to develomethodologies for integrating Tribal perspectives into the science progra

 NPS and Reclamation report on the 

condition of the 153 archaeological soriginally evaluated by Damp and Pederson.
Formation of new TWG Ad Hoc Group

Name of Group: TWG Operating Procedures Ad Hoc Group (OPAHG)

Date established: June 20, 2012

Purpose: To consider and make recommendations to AMWG on: (1) Revised TWG 

Operating Procedures; (2) Review of CRAHG Report and implementation 

of recommendations ... .

Membership:

Name Affiliation Status

Cliff Barrett

cibarre@q.com

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems TWG Member

Shane Capron

capron@wapa.gov

Western Area Power Administration TWG Chair

Kevin Dahl

kdahl@npca.org

Grand Canyon Trust TWG Alternate

Craig Ellsworth

ellsworth@wapa.gov

Western Area Power Administration TWG Alternate

Chris Harris (Chair)

csharris@crb.ca.gov

Colorado River Board of California TWG Member

Chris Hughes

chris_hughes@nps.gov 

NPS/Glen Canyon National Recreation Area TWG Member

Glen Knowles

gknowles@usbr.gov

Bureau of Reclamation TWG Member

Vineetha Kartha

vkartha@azater.gov

Arizona Department of Water Resources TWG Member

Jason Thiriot

jasthiriot@crc.nv.gov

State of Nevada

(Colorado River Commission of Nevada)

TWG Alternate

Cultural Resources Ad Hoc Group (CRAHG) Membership

Jan Balsom

Jan_balsom@nps.gov

NPS/Grand Canyon National Park TWG Member

Charley Bulletts

cbulletts@kaibabpaiute-nsn.gov

Southern Paiute Consortium TWG Member

Kerry Christensen

Cuszhman@yahoo.com

Hualapai Tribe TWG Member

Kurt Dongoske (chair)

kdongoske@cableone.net

Pueblo of Zuni TWG Member

Helen Fairley

hfairley@usgs.gov

GCMRC GCMRC staff

Chris Hughes

chris_hughes@nps.gov

NPS/Glen Canyon National Recreation Area TWG Member

Loretta Jackson-Kelly

lorjac@frontiernet.net

Hualapai Tribe TWG Alternate

Mike Yeatts

Michael.yeatts@nau.edu

Hopi Tribe TWG Member

Lisa Meyer

meyer@wapa.gov

Western Area Power Administration
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LARRY DALE JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

Defendant. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:15-CV-00581-AC 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and 

Recommendation (#76) on July 27, 2016, in which he recommends the 

Court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (#65) sua sponte with 

leave to amend "only to seek to compel the BOP to decide whether 

to accept or reject his underlying administrative claim, under 

the APA." 

1 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00581-AC Document 89 Filed 02/24/17 Page 1 of 3
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its 

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall, 

561 F. 3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F. 3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en bane). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de nova, the Court does not 

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (#65). 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint no later than March 16, 2017, only to seek to compel 

the BOP to decide whether to accept or reject his underlying 

administrative claim under the APA. 

The Court advises Plaintiff that the Magistrate Judge will 

review Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and will recommend 

sua sponte dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint if it fails 

to comply with the July 27, 2016, Findings and Recommendation or 

this Court's Order. If Plaintiff fails to file a Second Amended 

Complaint by March 16, 2017, or if Plaintiff's Second Amended 

Complaint does not comply with the Findings and Recommendation or 

this Court's Order, the Court will dismiss this matter with 

2 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00581-AC Document 89 Filed 02/24/17 Page 2 of 3
prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 24th day of February, 2017. 

/s/ Anna J. Brown 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

3 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00581-AC Document 89 Filed 02/24/17 Page 3 of 3