alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Vincent Murphy et al., Appellants, v Arthur Shaw, Respondent.

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of a motion to vacate, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
Laurie Shertz LLC, OSB 96477 

121 SW Salmon, 11th Floor 

Portland, OR 97204 

tel: 503/406-2136 

fax: 503/406-2136 

e: Laurie@LShertzlaw.com

Attorney for Darryl Thorn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

Counsel for Darryl Thorn hereby moves this court for an order relieving 

Ms. Shertz and ordering substitution of counsel pursuant to 18 USC § 3006A(c) 

and the Sixth Amendment to the United States. 

This Motion is based on the accompanying and concurrently filed 

Declaration of Counsel. 

 Respectfully submitted this 14 of April, 2016.

 /s/ Laurie Shertz 

LAURIE SHERTZ, OSB # 96477 

 503/406-2136 

Attorney for Darryl Thorn

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Darryl Thorn, 

 Defendant.

No. 3:16 CR 00051-22 BR 

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND FOR 

SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

United States v. Thorn 

USDC Oregon 3:16 CR 00051-22 BR 

Page 1 - MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL

LAURIE SHERTZ LLC, OSB #96477 

121 SW SALMON STREET, 11TH FLOOR  PORTLAND, OR 97204 

503-406-2136   e: Laurie@LShertzlaw.com

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 410 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 1
# L_2009049EN.01000901.xml

| 20.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 49/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 49/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 142/2009

of 19 February 2009

fixing the maximum export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 17 February 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for the tendering period ending on 17 February 2009.

| (3) | The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 17 February 2009, the maximum amount of refund for the products and destinations referred to in Article 1(c) and in Article 2 of that Regulation shall be EUR 21,98/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 February 2009.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 February 2009.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.

3

---
Exhibit 10.33.1

Amendment No. 7 (the "Amendment") To  Employment Agreement between  Univision Communications Inc. ("Univision") and George W. Blank  (the "Employment Agreement")

November 14,
2001

|To: |  | George W. Blank
c/o Univision
|--- |  | -----------------------------

Dear
George:

You
and Univision agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.Salary.    Your annual Base Salary rate will be: Five Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars
($540,000) for calendar year 2002.

2.Effective Date of Amendment.    Upon execution by you and Univision, this Amendment will
become effective as of the date first provided above.

3.Other.    Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the
Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed.

|                                   |  |  | UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC.
|---------------------------------- |  |  | -----------------------------
|                                   |  |  |                              
|                                   |  |  | By:                          
|                                   |  |  |                              
|                                   |  |  |                              
|                                   |  |  |                              
|/s/ GEORGE W. BLANKGeorge W. Blank |  |  |                              
|                                   |  |  |                              
|                                   |  |  |                              

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1877 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1877

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2016

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend section 520J of the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
         grants for mental health first aid training programs.

    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 ``Mental Health First Aid Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS TRAINING GRANTS.

    Section 520J of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-41) 
is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by inserting ``mental health 
        awareness'' before ``training''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 
                ``Illness'' and inserting ``Health'';
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, veterans, 
                law enforcement, and other categories of individuals, 
                as determined by the Secretary,'' after ``emergency 
                services personnel'';
                    (C) in paragraph (5)--
                            (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph 
                        (A), by striking ``to'' and inserting ``for 
                        evidence-based programs that provide education 
                        to teachers, personnel, and other categories of 
                        individuals described in paragraph (1) on at 
                        least''; and
                            (ii) by striking subparagraphs (A) through 
                        (C) and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) recognizing the signs and symptoms of mental 
                illness; and
                    ``(B) either--
                            ``(i) resources available in the community 
                        for individuals with a mental illness and other 
                        relevant resources; or
                            ``(ii) the safe de-escalation of crisis 
                        situations involving individuals with a mental 
                        illness.''; and
                    (D) in paragraph (7), by striking ``, $25,000,000'' 
                and all that follows through the period at the end and 
                inserting ``$14,963,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 
                through 2021.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-13-2009

Zheng v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-4681

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Zheng v. Atty Gen USA" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1744.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1744
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-4681 

Zheng v. Attorney General

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED at the direction of the Court that the Opinion in the

above case, filed February 11, 2009, be amended as follows:

Page 18 shall read:

III.

For all of the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

For the Court,

/s/ Marcia M. Waldron 

Clerk

Dated:March 13, 2009

PDB/cc: Isaac Fromm, Esq.

 Daniel B. Lundy, Esq.

 John J. W. Inkeles, Esq.
* 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 Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50406 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TEODORO ROCHA-CERDA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-254-1

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Teodoro RochaCerda raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
MUDDY CRK BLW WOLFORD MTN RESER. NR KREMMLING, COLatitude: 40.109Longitude: -106.414Elevation: 7380

MUDDY CRK BLW WOLFORD MTN RESER. NR KREMMLING, CO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Arapaho Ridge Site Page...



Arapaho Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbine Site Page...



Columbine

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buffalo Park Site Page...



Buffalo Park
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7527

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODNEY LAMAR SELF,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K. 

Reidinger, District Judge. (2:08-cr-00028-MR-1; 2:13-cv-00049-

MR)

Submitted: March 11, 2016 Decided: March 17, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Gridley Pruden, TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Lamar Self seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); United States 

v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 398-401 (4th Cir. 2015). 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) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Self has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Paria Beach Restoration Project 

The project’s overall goals are... 

• restore the natural 

shoreline, native 

riparian ecosystem 

functions, and natural 

riverside habitats 

along the Colorado 

River below Glen 

Canyon Dam 

• improve recreation 

experiences, including 

fishing, wildlife 

viewing, boating, and 

beach visitation; 

sustain the local 

recreation economy 

• engage and empower 

members of local and 

regional communities, 

and specifically Native 

American youth, in 

hands-on, place-based 

learning with riparian 

restoration projects 
e

Why is Paria Beach important? Cultural values... 

University of Colorado Law Revi 

-Recognizing 11 Indigenous tribes 

as traditional stewards of these 

regional lands & waters

-Respecting the enduring 

A rich cultural history - 

Indigenous peoples have 

historic and current 

connections with Grand 

Canyon, Glen Canyon, 

and the Colorado River.

 

Paria Beach: 

Riparian Restoration in Progress 


 

 

 

Paria Beach outdoor restoration learning lab 

Page High School and USGS-led student volunteers planted 

native trees & shrubs, constructed plant cages, hand 

watered in follow up visit, and collected and scattered seed 

from nearby native plants seeds at the restoration site. 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgements 

This project has been greatly assisted by our colleagues and 

partners Ken Hyde, Lonnie Pilkington, Taryn Preston, Reuben 

Teran, Brian Stultz, Katrina Pappas, Jonathan Patt, Jeri Ledbetter, 

Andrea Hazelton, Matt Kaplinsky, the Wild Stew Field Crew, and 

many more. We also thank the Page High School staff, 

all the student volunteers, teachers, AWPF, 

and NPS staff at GRCA , GLCA, and Zion NP.
# Patent

## Title
Wiring enclosure for desks

## Abstract

This is a division of application Ser. No. 511,237, filed Oct. 2, 1974, U.S. Pat. No. 3,989,234.

## Background
In typical ball or roller bearings the rotating elements slide against each other or slide against a cage. This sliding friction causes heat and wear, and necessitates providing clearances and lubrication in the bearing. Several previous U.S. Patents propose bearing devices which avoid sliding friction, but these are excessively complex, too expensive to manufacture, incur a high speed problem, require impossibly close manufacturing tolerances, or are impractical for other reasons.

Rolling contact bearings are defined as including only rolling contact in the relative movement between their components, there being no sliding friction anywhere. The invention describes a roller bearing in which the ends of the rollers are extended to include V-grooved portions, balls being interposed in rolling contact between these V-grooved portions to prevent the rollers from contacting each other. A retainer race affixed to the inner race and radially outwards of it, holds the balls in position.

Accordingly, it is an object of the invention to provide useful rolling contact bearings which have no sliding friction.

Yet another object of the invention is to provide rolling contact bearings in which lubrication is not essential.

Other objects of this invention will appear from the following description and appended claims, reference being had to the accompanying drawings forming a part of this specification wherein like reference characters designate corresponding parts in the several views.

The FIGURE is a vertical sectional view of the upper portion of a combination radial and axial-load rolling contact roller bearing in which balls positioned between grooves at the ends of the rollers provide separation therebetween.

Before explaining the present invention in detail, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited in its application to the details of construction and arrangement of parts illustrated in the accompanying drawings, since the invention is capable of other embodiments and of being practiced or carried out in various ways. Also, it is to be understood that the phraseology or terminology employed herein is for the purpose of description and not of limitation.

Device 100 of the FIGURE is a combination radial-load and axial-load rolling-contact roller bearing in which the distance traveled by the spacing balls is increased by having them roll in V-grooves in the load-bearing rollers in compensation for their greater distance from the axis of the bearing. Bearing loads are transferred from outer race 101 through rollers 102 to inner race 103. Retaining balls 104 ride in V-grooves 102a of rollers 102 and are held in position by retaining ring 103a.

## Claims

1. A rolling contact roller bearing comprising: affixed thereto, said retainer race, and free to rotate relative thereto, means, rolling contact therewith and with said retainer race, so as to prevent said rollers from contacting each other, outer race, so as to transfer loads therebetween.
---

---

Exhibit 13.(a).1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Blue Square-Israel Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

1.
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: June 28, 2007 |  | By: /s/ Gil Unger
Gil UngerChief Executive Officer
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: June 28, 2007 |  | By: /s/ Dror MoranDror MoranChief Financial Officer
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6739** 

AARON B. ROBERTS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. WARDEN J. PHILLIP MORGAN; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General o f the State of Maryland , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cv - 04011

- GLR )

Submitted : September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Aaron B. Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfie s this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003 ). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S . at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberts has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Randy M. WALKER, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 29,999.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

May 30, 1975.

*Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Captain Claud H. Drinnen,*and *Captain Robert C. Mueller*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Joel M. Martel*and *Captain Allan A. Toomey*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The staff judge advocate’s post-trial review omitted any reference to the recommendation of the accused’s battalion commander that the accused not be eliminated from the service. This was prejudicial error. *United States v. Parker,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 358, 47 C.M.R. 10 (1973); *United States*v. *Wartsbaugh,*21 U.S.C.M.A. 535, 45 C.M.R. 309 (1972); *United States v. Eller,*20 U.S.C.M.A. 401, 43 C.M.R. 241 (1971); *United States*v. *Boatner,*20 U.S.C.M.A. 376, 43 C.M.R. 216 (1971); *United States*v. *Rivera,*20 U.S.C.M.A. 6, 42 C.M.R. 198 (1970).

*40The decision of the U. S. Army Court of Military Review is reversed and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. The Court of Military Review may set aside the bad-conduct discharge or order a new post-trial review and action by the convening authority.