alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

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

__________________________ SHELIA WINSETT , Claimant

- Appellant
,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SE CRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS , Respondent

- Appellee

.

__________________________ 2012

- 71 80

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in case no. 12

- 784 , Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________ P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R Shelia Winsett moves for reconsideration of the court’s November 21, 2012 order denying her “Motion Notifying Court Secretary Shinseki Has Filed Notice of Appearance Under Perjury Illegal .” Winsett also submits

a motion entitled “ Asking Permission to File a Reply to Case: 12-7180 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 04/09/2013SHELIA WINSETT V

. SHINSEKI 2 Respondent’s Response to Motion Regarding Notice of Appearance.” Upon consideration thereof, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion for leave to file a reply is granted. (2) The motion for reconsideration is denied.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk
s26 Case: 12-7180 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 04/09/2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

July 8, 2011

No. 07-4394

United States of America

v.

John A. O’Neal, Appellant

(E.D. Pa. No. 04-mj-01060)

Present: HARDIMAN, ALDISERT, Circuit Judges and RESTANI *, Judge

1. Motion by Appellee to Correct Opinion of the Court.

Respectfully,

Clerk/slc

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing Motion is GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed June 22, 

2011, be amended as follows:

Page 3, Section II, second line, which read:

On appeal, the United States concedes that it failed to demonstrate that O’Neal’s 

protest occurred on VA property.

shall read:

In its Summary of Argument in the brief before us the United States Attorney 

states: “The government, upon careful consideration of the matter, reverses its earlier 

position and agrees with that part of the Appellant’s argument asserting that the 

government presented insufficient evidence to support a restriction on O’Neal’s political 

activity on October 28, 2004. The government did not sustain its burden in defeating the 

presumption that the area where O’Neal mounted his protest was a public forum; and 

 

*The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge of the United States Court of International

Trade, sitting by designation.
2

further did not establish the circumstances justifying a restriction on political speech in a 

public forum.” 

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas M. Hardiman

Circuit Judge

Dated: July 18, 2011

CRG:\ All counsel of record
#### McMAHON et al., Appellants, v. SMITH, Respondent.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

Action by Dennis McMahon and others against John Smith. D. McMahon, for appellants. A. M. Clute, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment herein is affirmed for the reason assigned by the trial justice in his opinion. 39 N. Y. Supp. 826.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19229]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Research Infrastructure for Interdisciplinary Aging Studies
    Date: October 26, 2021.
    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Isis S. Mikhail, MD, MPH, DrPH, Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on 
Aging, National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building 2C212, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-7704, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4b9bdbfbcb5bdb8bd94b9b5bdb8fababdbcfab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c5a8acaeada4aca9ac85a8a4aca9ebabacadeba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 31, 2021.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19229 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 3:15-cv-02434-MC Document 27-2 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1of1 

DA YID ROACH, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

NANCY BERRYHILL, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

3:15-CV-02434-MC 

ORDER 

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

amount of $1,826.86 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs attorney and 

mailed to Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs attorney's office at the address stated above. 

DATED this L.o day of \fV\.o-.,. .:-L , 2017. 

Michael McShane 

United States District Court Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02434-MC Document 29 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 1
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1979 

To strengthen the protections from levy by the Internal Revenue Service 

for taxpayers in economic hardship. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN (for herself, Ms. NORTON, Mr. MEEKS, and Mrs. 

LAWRENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To strengthen the protections from levy by the Internal 

Revenue Service for taxpayers in economic hardship. 

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 ‘‘Taxpayer Economic 

5 Hardship Protection Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION FROM LEVY FOR TAXPAYERS IN ECO7 NOMIC HARDSHIP. 

8 The Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary’s 

9 delegate) shall take the following actions to protect tax10 payers in economic hardship from levy: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1979 IH

1 (1) Establish quality review procedures that 

2 measure whether employees of the Internal Revenue 

3 Service identified and considered the possibility that 

4 a taxpayer was in economic hardship before levying. 

5 (2) Establish quality review procedures that 

6 measure whether, in each case in which an employee 

7 of the Internal Revenue Service identifies economic 

8 hardship of a taxpayer, the employee adhered to the 

9 decision by the United States Tax Court entitled, 

10 ‘‘Vinatieri against Commissioner’’ (133 T.C. 392 

11 (2009)), by placing the account of the taxpayer in 

12 a currently not collectible status rather than levying 

13 on the taxpayer. 

14 (3) Develop, and publish as part of the Internal 

15 Revenue Manual, guidelines for how collection em16 ployees of the Internal Revenue Service, on the basis 

17 of information in Internal Revenue Service and 

18 third-party databases, should consider the possibility 

19 that a taxpayer is in economic hardship before 

20 issuing a levy. 

21 (4) Adjust the Federal Payment Levy Program 

22 low income filter to include accounts with unfiled re23 turns. 

24 (5) Inform collection employees of the Internal 

25 Revenue Service of procedural changes described in 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1979 IH

1 the preceding paragraphs by issuing a separate alert 

2 and a memorandum. 

3 (6) Update training materials and job aids to 

4 reflect the decision of the United States Tax Court 

5 entitled, ‘‘Vinatieri against Commissioner’’ (133 

6 T.C. 392 (2009)) and the changes to the Internal 

7 Revenue Manual made in 2013 relating to liability 

8 collection (part 5, chapter 19) and notice of levy 

9 (part 5, chapter 11). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2006126EN.01000501.xml

| 30.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/5

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2006/C 126/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Poland

Aid No: N 249/2005

Title: Individual Aid — Energetyka Wisłosan — Electricity Supply

Objective: To allow for further operation of the company in difficulty until the restructuring programme is elaborated

Legal basis: Ustawa z dnia 30 sierpnia 1996 r. o komercjalizacji i prywatyzacji (Dz.U. z 2002 r., 171, poz. 1397)

Budget: PLN 2,3 million (about EUR 0,55 million)

Aid intensity or amount: The amount necessary is based on the liquidity needs of the company. It was calculated with application of the formula set out in the Annex of the Community Guidelines on aid for rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty

Duration: Six months

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Belgium

Aid No: N 603/2003

Title: Measures to promote night working and shift working

Objective: Reduce the costs of shift working and night working

Legal basis: Loi programme du 22 décembre 2003, articles 301 et 302

Programmawet van 22 december 2003, artikelen 301 en 302

Budget: EUR 84 million

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption:

Member State: Poland [Południowy]

Aid No: N 630/2005

Title: Pomoc regionalna dla MAN Trucks Sp. z o.o.

Objective: Regional development [Limited to motor vehicles]

Legal basis: Umowa ramowa o udzielenie dotacji celowej z dnia 16 sierpnia 2005 r. pomiędzy Ministrem Gospodarki i Pracy a MAN Trucks Sp. z o.o.

Uchwała nr 201/2005 z dnia 2 sierpnia 2005 r. w sprawie ustanowienia programu wieloletniego pod nazwą „Wsparcie finansowe inwestycji realizowanej przez MAN Trucks Sp. z o.o. w Niepołomicach k/Krakowa pod nazwą: MAN Zakład Montażu Ciężarówek, w latach 2005-2008”

Art. 80 ustawy z dnia 26 listopada 1998 r. o finansach publicznych (Dz.U. z 2003 r., nr 15, poz. 148)

Budget: Overall aid amount granted: PLN 52 494 007

Duration: End date: 31.12.2008

Maximum aid intensity: 13,6 %

Other information: Individual aid — Direct grant

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

---
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

66 

TP 13-01204 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN WISNIEWSKI, PETITIONER, 

V ORDER

RANDY K. JAMES, SUPERINTENDENT, LIVINGSTON 

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, AND NEW YORK STATE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY 

SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS. 

 

STEVEN WISNIEWSKI, PETITIONER PRO SE. 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. ARNOLD OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS. 

 

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial

Department by order of the Supreme Court, Livingston County [Dennis S.

Cohen, A.J.], entered July 1, 2013) to review a determination finding

after a tier II hearing that petitioner had violated an inmate rule. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously

confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. 

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Nitza Keane, Appellant, v Frank M. Keane, Respondent.

Submitted January 22, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

Motion for reargument denied with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements *[see*8 NY3d 115].
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      296,212
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               189,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                  54,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            551,880
<PP&E>                                   16,952,977
<DEPRECIATION>                             (705,578)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           17,590,542
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     8,201,615
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      5,967
<OTHER-SE>                                4,462,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             17,590,542
<SALES>                                   5,809,667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          5,821,910
<CGS>                                     2,275,039
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,939,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          672,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,045,489)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (393,418)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (652,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             311,850
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (340,221)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.06)


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

EUGENE G. WALTON, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-154

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed September 4, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Hillsborough County; Michelle

Sisco, Judge.

Eugene G. Walton, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Wicker v. State, 462 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1985); Tucker v. 

State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1984); State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1983); State v. 

Hicks, 421 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1982); Walton v. State, 244 So. 3d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 

2018) (table decision).

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Discuss Upcoming Budget and Condu

Group Exercise to Develop Initial Bud

Guidance for GCMRC and the Bureau 

Reclamation
 

January 26, 2017
Why are we

providing initial

guidance now?

GCDAMP Triennial

Budget and Work Plan

Process
Getting to a TWG Recommendation

Ideas

TWG recommenda

January February March April May June

I will buy you an excellent cup of coffee if you can tell me where the unmodified version of this graphic came from. Hint: snow
Components of the Initial Guidance

TWG “individual” input

Jan 9. email requestAny and alltraditional routesPost TWG input

AHG “group” input

TWG “group” input

BAHG “group” in

Jan. 9 email task to

SEAHG, TAHG, andCRAHGPost TWG input

Jan. 26 exercise

Feb. calls andmeetings
There is No Time Like the Present

• Let your voice be heard

• Early input is easier to consider than later input

• Suggest your big changes now...details later

• If you were frustrated before, now is your time to suggest 

This slide is here for motivational purposes!
Budget Sideboards

• FY 17 Budget: $10.92 (BOR: $2.11 M, GCMRC: $8.80 M)

• FY17 CPI is 1.5%

• CPI assumptions: Assume 1% CPI for each year (2018, 201

• Assume roughly 20% for BOR (program administration), 8

GCMRC (research and monitoring)
Group Exercise Instructions (1:30 total 

1. Answer questions about the table (10 minutes).2. Members will be asked to write down their highest prio

(not already on the walls; 10 minutes).

3. Written elements will be gathered, read aloud, and post

walls (10 minutes).

4. Members will be asked if there are any major elements 

so, these elements will be written down, read aloud, an

the walls (20 minutes).
Group Exercise Instructions (1:30 total 

6. Five green stickers will be given to each member and ea

will be directed to place the sticker on their highest prio

elements, without overlapping another sticker (15 minu

7. The top stickered elements will be read aloud (5 minute

8. Five yellow stickers will be given to each member and ea

will be directed to place the sticker on their highest prio

elements, without overlapping another sticker (15 minu

9. The top stickered elements will be read aloud (5 minute
Group Exercise Instructions (1:30 total 

11. All elements will be compiled into a list and attributed w

results of the sticker steps. List will be provided to the B

organization and delivery to Reclamation and GCMRC.
Case 6:16-cv-00515-MC Document 20-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 1of2 

John E. Haapala, Jr. 

OSB 061739 

401 E. 101

h Ave., Ste. 240 

Eugene, OR 97401 

Ph: 541-345-84 7 4 

Fax: 541-345-3237 

jeh@haapalaw.com 

Of attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CARMELO A. PARKS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 6:16-cv-00515-MC 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO 

JUSTICE ACT 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant 

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of 

$6,824.52 shall be awarded to Plaintiff. 

The parties agree that this award will be paid to Plaintiff's attorney, dependent 

upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for offset against the award, 

pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff ,560 U.S. 586 

(2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then a check shall be made to Plaintiffs attorney, 

and mailed directly to Plaintiff's attorney at: 401 E. 101

h Ave., Ste. 240, Eugene, OR 

1 -ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS 

TO JUSTICE ACT 
Case 6:16-cv-00515-MC Document 20-2 Filed 04/10/17 Page 2 of 2 

97401. If Plaintiff has a debt, then a check for any remaining funds after offset of the 

debt shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney's office. 

There are no other costs or expenses to be paid herein. 

Dated this _!]_of April, 2017. 

Submitted by: 

John E Haapala, OSB 061739 

401 E. 101

h Ave., Ste. 240 

Eugene, OR 97401 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

l L---

United States District Judge/Magistrate 

2 - ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS 

TO JUSTICE ACT
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00482

- CV

CRVI RIVERWALK HOSPITALITY, LLC, Appellant

v.

425 SOLEDAD, LTD. and 425 Loneliness, Ltd., Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 20826 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA

, JUSTICE WATKINS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we REVERSE the June 29, 2020 final judgment for appellee 425 Lon eliness, Ltd. on its declaratory judgment claim, the trial court’s ordering appellant CRVI Riverwalk Hospitality, LLC take nothing on its declaratory judgment claim, and its order that appellant CRVI Riverwalk Hospitality, LLC comply with the terms of the Parking Agreement. We RENDER judgment for appellant CRVI Riverwalk Hospitality, LLC on its declaratory judgment claim and declare the Parking Agreement is void as to appellant CRVI Riverwalk Hospitality, LLC.

We REVERSE the trial court’s judgment for 425 Loneliness in the amount of $364,296.96 in attorney’s fees and other conditional appellate attorney’s fees and REMAND the case to the trial court to reconsider what award of attorney’s fees, if any, are appropriate.

The final judgment is otherwise AFFIRMED.

SIGNED August 10, 2022.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Fredrick H. PORTER, Private, U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant.

No. 30,115.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

July 11, 1975.

*Lieutenant Michael C. Barr,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel P. N. Kress,*USMC and *Lieutenant J. W. Malley, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The military judge erred prejudicially by instructing the members of the accused’s court-martial that in fact “the taking by the accused was with the intent permanently to deprive Private First Class Claude Fisher of the use and benefit of the property.” *United States v. Gaiter,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 438, 50 C.M.R. 397, 1 M.J. 54 (1975).

The decision of the U.S. Navy Court of Military Review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A rehearing may be ordered.
• 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

DANIEL EVERETT JOHNSON, 

Defendant. 

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: 

COUNTl 

(Bank Robbery) 

(18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) 

No.3:15-CR- OJ09-Sl 

INDICTMENT 

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) 

On or about January 15, 2015, in Portland, Multnomah County, in the District of Oregon, 

defendant DANIEL EVERETT JOHNSON did by force, violence and intimidation, unlawfully 

and knowingly take from the presence of employees of the Key Bank, 3839 NE Broadway, 

Portland, Oregon, a sum of money, namely, approximately $500.00 in United States currency, 

which money was then and there in the care, custody, control, management and possession of 

Ill 

Ill 

Case 3:15-cr-00032-SI Document 1 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 2
said bank, whose deposits were then and there insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation; 

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113(a). 

~ Dated this '2\ day of January 2015. 

A TRUE BILL. 

I CIA TING FOREPERSON -

Presented by: 

S. AMANDA MARSHALL 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Indictment Page2 

Case 3:15-cr-00032-SI Document 1 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2