alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MARY ZEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CAROLYN COL VIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

6: 15-CV-00151-TC 

ORDER 

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

amount of $3006.42 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 )-t day of n a.~c.fL___ , 2016. 

Thomas Coffin 

'· 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

Case 6:15-cv-00151-TC Document 24 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4
                                  John Burgess
                             Compensation Agreement

   The Following agreement was adopted by the Board of Directors of Lumisys
          Incorporated pursuant to a Written Consent Dated May 1, 2000

1.  Base Salary. $125,000, effective 1/1/2000.
    ------------

2.  Commission. Burgess is eligible for commission payments targeted to be
    -----------
    $137,5000 for sales of $25 Million for the year ending 12/31/00 under the
    Company's standard commission plan.

3.  Incentive for sale Lumisys Inc. The success fee for the sale of the Lumisys,
    -------------------------------
    excluding AuntMinnie.com will be 1% of the net proceeds to Lumisys for any
    transaction up to $50 million and additionally, 2% of any incremental net
    proceeds to Lumisys above $50 million. The incentive will be paid in cash as
    soon as feasible, but not to exceed 30 days from the date Lumisys receives
    proceeds from the transaction.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50791]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19501]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This 
meeting will still be held via teleconference.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, October 13, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(718) 834-2203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee will be held Wednesday, October 13, 
2021, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate 
must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact 
Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP 
Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or 
contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will 
include various IRS issues.

    Dated: September 3, 2021.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2021-19501 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
PAGE 1 – STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

Jennifer J. Middleton, OSB 071510 

jmiddleton@justicelawyers.com

JOHNSON, JOHNSON & SCHALLER, PC

975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 

Eugene, OR 97401-3124 

Phone: 541/683-2506 

Fax: 541/484-0882 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe

John C. Clune, Admitted Pro Hac Vice

clune@hbcboulder.com

Keith M. Edwards, Admitted Pro Hac Vice

kedwards@hbcboulder.com

HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC

921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

Boulder, CO 80302-5173 

Phone: 303/442-6514 

Fax: 303/442-5693 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jane Doe

J. Michael Porter, OSB # 003560 

mike.porter@millernash.com

Michelle Barton Smigel, OSB # 045530 

michelle.smigel@millernash.com

MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN, LLP

111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 

Portland, OR 97204-3614 

Phone: 503/205-2330 

Fax: 503/205-8504 

Attorneys for Defendants 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, DANA DEAN 

ALTMAN, AS AN INDIVIDUAL. 

Defendants.

 CASE NO. 6:15-cv-00042-MC 

STIPULATED JUDGMENT

OF DISMISSAL

Case 6:15-cv-00042-MC Document 19 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties, through their undersigned counsel, 

stipulate to the dismissal of all claims against defendant University of Oregon with prejudice and 

without fees or costs to any party. 

DATED: August 4, 2015. DATED: August 4, 2015. 

JOHNSON, JOHNSON & SCHALLER, PC MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN, LLP

By: /s/ Jennifer J. Middleton By: /s/ J. Michael Porter 

Jennifer J. Middleton, OSB # 071510 J. Michael Porter, OSB # 003560 

jmiddleton@justicelawyers.com mike.porter@milelrnash.com

975 Oak Street, Suite 1050 Michelle Barton Smigel, OSB # 045530 

Eugene, OR 97401-3124 michelle.smigel@millernash.com

Phone: 541/683-2506 111 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3400 

Fax: 541/484-0882 Portland, OR 97204-3614 

Phone: 503/205-2330 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Fax: 503/205-8504 

Of Attorneys for Defendants

John C. Clune, Admitted Pro Hac Vice

clune@hbcboulder.com

Keith M. Edwards, Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

kedwards@hbcboulder.com

HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC

921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 

Boulder, CO 80302-5173 

Phone: 303/442-6514 

Fax: 303/442-5693 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 6:15-cv-00042-MC Document 19 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 2
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan (LTEMP) Biological 

Opinion Conservation Measures update: 

Technical Work Group Meeting

January 15, 2020

Scott VanderKooi

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center

Lee Traynham

Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Basin – Interior 

Region 7
Incidental Take Parameters and 

Action Triggers:

TIER 1 – Early Intervention

TRIGGER 2017 2018 2019

1A. Combined adult Humpback Chub 

(HBC; ≥200 mm) in the mainstem Little 

Colorado River (LCR) aggregation and 

LCR

≤ 9000 > 9,000 > 9,000 > 9,000

OR

1B. Recruitment of sub-adult HBC (150-

199 mm) does not equal or exceed 

estimated adult mortality

3-yr

ave.

1) Sub-adult in spring estimates 3 year rolling 

ave. ≤ 1,250 3146 1791 2592 2509

OR

2) Sub-adult in mainstem in Juvenile 

Chub Monitoring (JCM) Reach

3 year rolling 

ave. ≤ 810 1521 945 482 982

USGS Preliminary Data, 2020. Do Not Cite.
Incidental Take Parameters and 

Action Triggers:

TIER 2 – Mechanical Removal

TRIGGER 2017 2018 2019

Mechanical Removal implemented

If adult HBC (≥200 mm): declines to <7,000 N/A N/A N/A

Terminate Mechanical Removal 

If predator index is: <60 rainbow trout 

(RBT)/km - - -

and immigration rate is: low* - - -

OR

HBC population estimates: exceed 7,500 - - -

and survival rates of sub-adult chub: exceeds adult mortality 

for at least 2 years - - -

(*long term feasibility of using immigration rates 

as a metric still needs to be assessed)
Conservation Measures
Conservation Measures Summary

 Humpback chub

o Translocations, monitoring, nonnative removal, refuge support

 Razorback sucker

o Monitoring

 Benefits to Native Aquatic Species

o Evaluate nonnative fish management, temp control, fish passage 

 Southwest Willow Flycatcher

o Monitor every 2 years

 Yuma Ridgeway’s Rail

o Monitor every 3 years
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            5
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         253,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,130,883
<PP&E>                                          17,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                     194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,152,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,707,482
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,094
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,497,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,152,670
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               188,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (240,059)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (90,382)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (149,677)
<DISCONTINUED>                               5,557,641
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                361,570
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,769,534
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
        

</TABLE>
BLD-165 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1667

___________

IN RE: ARTHUR MORRISON,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civil No. 08-cv-05408)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 8, 2010

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Filed: June 7, 2010)

_________

OPINION OF THE COURT

_________

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Arthur Morrison, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of

mandamus compelling the District Court to rule on two of his motions. For the reasons

that follow, we will deny the petition.

Morrison was convicted of various crimes in the United States District Court for

the Southern District of New York. He was sentenced to 300 months’ imprisonment and

is currently incarcerated at FCI-Terminal Island in California.
2

In November 2008, Morrison filed in the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He

also filed a motion seeking release on bail pending resolution of the petition. The District

Court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. In June 2009, the District Court

reopened Morrison’s case to address the numerous motions he filed after his petition was

dismissed. The District Court then denied Morrison’s pending “motion to correct or

modify the record.” In November 2009, Morrison filed a motion to reconsider, which the

District Court denied in March 2010. Morrison recently appealed that decision. See

Morrison v. United States, C.A. No. 10-1891.

On the same day that the District Court denied his motion for reconsideration,

Morrison filed the instant mandamus petition. Mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy”

that we have discretion to award only when a petitioner demonstrates, among other

things, a “clear and indisputable” right to relief. In re: Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d

383, 398-99 (3d Cir. 2006). Moreover, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. See In re

Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 379 (3d Cir. 2005). Morrison requests that

this Court compel the District Court to: (1) dispose of his November 2009 motion to

reconsider, and (2) exercise jurisdiction over his application for release on bail. 

As to both requests, Morrison’s petition is moot. It appears that the District Court

order denying Morrison’s motion to reconsider crossed in the mail with the mandamus

petition, as they were both filed on the same day. As to Morrison’s request for release on
3

bail, we understand that motion to have been disposed of when the District Court

dismissed the habeas petition in 2008. To the extent that he seeks bail pending his appeal

at C.A. No. 10-1891, he should file an appropriate motion in that case. As such, Morrison

has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief, so we will deny the petition

for mandamus. See In re: Pressman-Gutman Co., 459 F.3d at 398-99.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-11077

Summary Calendar

THOMAS SCOTT MOLLOY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

J. KEITH PRICE, Senior Warden, PhD;

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:97-CV-173-Y)

June 14, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas Scott Molloy, a Texas state prisoner, appeals the denial of his habeas corpus

petition, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Molloy contends that his defense attorney’s prior

involvement as a prosecutor created a conflict of interest amounting to per se ineffective

assistance of counsel. Molloy also asserts that the denial of his application for habeas relief

by the state court is subject to de novo review.

Molloy’s position with respect to the standard of review is without merit. As held by1 See U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Drinkard v. Johnson , 97 F.3d 751 (5 th Cir. 1996).

2 Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

3 Cuyler v. Sullivan , 446 U.S. 335 (1980).

4 See United States v. Maria-Martinez

, 143 F.3d 914 (5 th Cir. 1998), cert

. denied

, 119 S.Ct. 876

(1999).

2 the district court in its order denying habeas relief, the proper standard of review for federal

habeas applications presenting mixed questions of law and fact, such as is herein presented,

is whether the state court decision unreasonably applied federal law. 1

Molloy’s contention that his defense counsel’s alleged conflict of interest constituted

ineffective assistance of counsel also lacks merit. Molloy has failed to satisfy the usual

ineffective assistance

of counsel test – he has not demonstrated error by counsel falling

below the objective standard of reasonableness and which, with reasonable probabili t y,

changed the result of the trial. 2 Nor has he satisfied the more lenient standard arguably

applicable to t his case; he has not established that an actual conflict of interest adversely

affected his counsel’s performance. 3 Finally, Molloy’s requested application of a p er se rule

of ineffective assistance of counsel is not warranted in this case. 4

Accordingly, we perceive no error in the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our reports for Locus Computing Corporation dated March 20, 1995
incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into PLATINUM technology, inc.'s
previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statements (Registration Nos. 333-20897,
333-3284, 333-00454, 33-96762, 33-85798 and 33-41248) and previously filed Form
S-1 Registration Statement (Registration No.333-07783).


                                 /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Los Angeles, California
March 26, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18262]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Parts 59, 61, and 62

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0026]
RIN 1660-AA95


National Flood Insurance Program: Conforming Changes To Reflect 
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW-12) and the 
Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), and 
Additional Clarifications for Plain Language; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On July 20, 2020, FEMA published in the Federal Register a 
final rule revising the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 
regulations to codify certain provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood 
Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and the Homeowner Flood Insurance 
Affordability Act of 2014, and to clarify certain existing NFIP rules 
relating to NFIP operations and the Standard Flood Insurance Policy. 
This final rule provides corrections to those instructions, to be used 
in lieu of the information published July 20.

DATES: This correction is effective October 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking is available for inspection 
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and 
can be viewed by following that website's instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Bronowicz, Director, 
Policyholder Services Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation 
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 557-9488.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2020-09260, beginning on page 
43946 in the Federal Register of Monday, July 20, 2020, the following 
corrections are made:

PART 61--INSURANCE COVERAGE AND RATES

Appendix A(1) to Part 61 [Corrected]

0
1. On page 43961, in the first column, in Appendix A(1) to Part 61, 
article III.A.5.a, ``(see II.B.6.a)'' is corrected to read ``(see 
II.C.6.a)''.

0
2. On page 43963, in the second column, in Appendix A(1) to Part 61, 
article IV.4, ``(see II.B.6.c)'' is corrected to read ``(see 
II.C.6.c)''.

Appendix A(2) to Part 61 [Corrected]

0
3. On page 43970, in the first column, in Appendix A(2) to Part 61, 
article III.A.6.a, ``(see II.B.6.a.)'' is corrected to read ``(see 
II.C.6.a)''.

Appendix A(3) to Part 61 [Corrected]

0
4. On page 43978, in the first column, in Appendix A(3) to Part 61, 
article III.A.6.a, ``(see II.B.6.a.)'' is corrected to read ``(see 
II.C.6.a)''.

Deanne B. Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-18262 Filed 8-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
				  to 
			 Certificate Holders

			 Scheduled        Unscheduled                Ending
Class        Interest     Pricipal          Principal               Balance
<S>     <C>             <C>             <C>                  <C>
A1        830,285.06    841,507.04       2,436,985.57        27,638,507.40 
A2        715,750.00          0.00               0.00        24,540,000.00 
A3        872,460.00          0.00               0.00        29,082,000.00 
A4        644,697.90          0.00               0.00        20,980,000.00 
A5      1,511,312.50          0.00               0.00        48,362,000.00 
A6        855,305.38    172,216.50         611,733.28        26,839,050.22 
A7      5,851,443.00  1,517,360.08        (399,242.23)      159,231,128.13 
A8        473,571.09     85,292.67         497,548.13        14,681,159.21 
A9        358,090.58     56,906.48         331,959.52         9,795,134.00 
A10       589,796.21    113,812.95         663,919.04        19,590,268.00 
A11       890,618.75          0.00               0.00        28,499,800.00 
A12       407,952.74    541,017.16       2,039,002.55        11,239,980.29 
A13     1,773,875.00          0.00               0.00        56,764,000.00 
A14       764,843.75          0.00               0.00        24,475,000.00 
A15       375,031.25          0.00               0.00        12,001,000.00 
A16       129,166.65          0.00               0.00         4,000,000.00 
A17             0.00          0.00               0.00           449,000.00 
A18       500,000.00          0.00               0.00        16,000,000.00 
A19       798,468.75          0.00               0.00        25,551,000.00 
ALR             3.15          0.00               0.00               100.00 
AR              3.10          0.00               0.00               100.00 
B1        425,182.42     48,336.13               0.00        13,576,663.86 
B2        236,229.79     26,855.38               0.00         7,543,144.62 
B3        141,706.66     16,109.68               0.00         4,524,890.32 
B4        160,648.74     18,263.09               0.00         5,129,736.92 
B5         85,036.49      9,667.23               0.00         2,715,332.77 
B6         85,045.54      6,514.11               0.00         2,715,622.06 

Total  19,476,524.50  3,453,858.50       6,181,905.86 






</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32**
**CERTIFICATION**
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), each of theundersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of ITLA Capital Corporation (the“Company”) that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for theperiods presented in the financial statements included in such report.        Date:  May 10, 2005 /s/ George W. Haligowski   George W. Haligowski   Chairman of the Board, Presidentand