alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WILBORN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 

TIM WILBORN - OSB # 944644 

tim@wilbornlaw.com 

P.O. Box 370578 

Las Vegas, NV 89137 

Voice: (702) 240-0184 

Fax: (503) 926-9133 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

THERESA KNIGHT, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

COMMISSIONER of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1: l 5-cv-2402-SB 

ORDER 

A supplemental award of attorney fees in the amount of $2,018.29 is hereby granted to 

Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access To Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The check shall be sent 

to Tim Wilborn's address, above. In accordance with the fee assignment which Plaintiff has signed, 

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

DATEDthis yof ~~ 

Submitted by: 

sf Tim Wilborn, OSB # 944644 

(702) 240-0184 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER - Page 1 

'2017.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2081 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2081

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2015

  Mr. Zinke introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
            hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT INVOLVING GIBSON DAM.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the requirements of section 13 of 
the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12478-003, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as 
the ``Commission'') may, at the request of the licensee for the 
project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance with the 
procedures of the Commission under that section, extend the time period 
during which the licensee is required to commence construction of the 
project for a 6-year period that begins on the date described in 
subsection (b).
    (b) Date Described.--The date described in this subsection is the 
date of the expiration of the extension of the period required for 
commencement of construction for the project described in subsection 
(a) that was issued by the Commission prior to the date of enactment of 
this Act under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2571

LESTER D. PERSINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Maurice G. Taylor, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-4) Submitted: July 28, 1998 Decided: August 24, 1998 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lester D. Persinger, Appellant Pro Se. Anne von Scheven, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment on Appellant’s complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Persinger v. Apfel, Comm’r , No. CA-97-4 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2159 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 

credit for energy-efficient new homes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

for one year the credit for energy-efficient new homes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR ENERGY-EFFI4 CIENT NEW HOMES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (g) of section 45L of 

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘December 31, 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

8 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2159 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to homes acquired after December 

3 31, 2014. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Alfred Eugene MACHADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 05-15669.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Alfred Eugene Machado, Vacaville, CA, pro se.

*793Carolyn M. Wiggin, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Daniel J. Kossick, Office of the California Attorney General, Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for RespondentsAppellees.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See**793Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Alfred Eugene Machado appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a § 2254 petition, *see McQuillion v. Duncan,*306 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The State contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction because there is no federally protected interest in parole release in California, and thus, Machado has failed to state a federal claim. This contention is foreclosed. *See Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms,*461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir.2006).

Machado contends that the California Board of Prison Terms’ (the “Board”) decision to deny him parole violated his due process rights because it was not supported by some evidence. We disagree. Our independent review of the record, see *Pirtle v. Morgan,*313 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2002), reveals no due process violation because the Board based its decision on several factors, and some evidence supports its decision. *See Superintendent v. Hill,*472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); *see also Sass,*461 F.3d at 1128-29.

Machado next contends that the Board was not authorized to determine his sentence, and that, with the calculation of credits, he is entitled to be released. This contention is unpersuasive as Machado was sentenced to an indeterminate term, and cannot be released until the Board finds him suitable for parole. *See Bennett v. California,*406 F.2d 36, 38 (9th Cir.1969) (stating that the constitutionality of indeterminate sentence laws like California’s and of the delegation of the power to fix and refix terms and grant and revoke parole is well-established).

Machado finally contends that the Board violated his due process rights because it was biased against him. This contention is conclusory and unsupported by the record, and, thus, is unpersuasive. *See Jones v. Gomez,*66 F.3d 199, 204 (9th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, the state court’s decision was not contrary to, and did not involve an unreasonable application of, federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2021393EN.01000201.xml

| 29.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 393/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 393/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10169 — EPLI/SZ/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 393/02)

On 10 August 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10169. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10169. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.1



Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-Q

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:



Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Gary D. OwensName:

Gary D. OwensTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 8, 2005
# C_2021463EN.01000401.xml

| 16.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10184 – CHANNEL 5 / BBC / ITV / CHANNEL 4 / DIGITAL UK)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 463/04)

On 13 October 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10184. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10184. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Storage                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Storage                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json
APPLIED INTELLIGENCE GROUP, INC.
                                
                        Table of Contents



                                                         Page
                          PART I                         
                                                          
   Item 1.  Description of Business                         1
   Item 2.  Description of Property                         8
   Item 3.  Legal Proceedings                               8
   Item 4.  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security     
            Holders                                         9
                                                           
                          PART II                            
                                                             
   Item 5.  Market for Common Equity and Related             
            Stockholder Matters                             9
   Item 6.  Management's Discussion and Analysis of          
            Financial Condition and Operations              9
   Item 7.  Financial Statements                           15
   Item 8.  Changes in and Disagreement With                 
            Accountants on Accounting and 
            Financial Disclosure                           15
                                                             
                          PART III                                             
   Item 9.  Directors, Executive Officers, Promoters       
            and Control Persons                            15
   Item 10. Executive Compensation                         18
   Item 11. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial         
            Owners and Management                          20
   Item 12. Certain Relationships and Related              
            Transactions                                   20
   Item 13. Exhibits and Reports and Form 8-K              22
EXHIBIT
32.1




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 accompanying Annual Report of Prescient Applied
Intelligence, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the
date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Jane F. Hoffer, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




By:
            /s/
      Jane F. HofferJane
      F. Hoffer
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
              March 12,
      2008








This
certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to
the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other
purpose.  It is not being filed as part of this Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 10.41

REVISED SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT

APPLICABLE TO THE COMPANYS NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTORS

As of March 9, 2006, the following represents the compensation program for non-employee directors of NMT Medical, Inc.
(the Company) who are not otherwise compensated by the Company:



| |  |  | an option to purchase 20,000 shares of the Companys Common Stock (the Common Stock) upon initial election and an option to purchase 5,000 shares (7,000 shares for
the Companys Lead Director) of Common Stock annually thereafter upon re-election at the Companys annual meeting of stockholders;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | following each annual meeting of stockholders, each eligible director who served as a member of a committee of the Board of Directors during the preceding fiscal year is granted an
additional option to purchase (i) 2,000 shares of Common Stock if such director served as chairperson of such committee or (ii) 1,000 shares of Common Stock if such director did not serve as chairperson of such committee;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $15,000 ($18,000 for the Companys Lead Director) per year for their services as directors;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $2,000 ($2,500 for the Companys Lead Director) for each meeting of the Board of Directors that they attend in person;
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $1,000 ($1,250 for the Companys Lead Director) for each telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors that they participate in;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $1,000 ($1,500 for each committee chairperson) for each board committee meeting that they attend in person;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $500 ($750 for each committee chairperson) for each telephonic board committee meeting that they participate in; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | expense reimbursement for attending Board of Directors and board committee meetings.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**UN PUBLISHED** 
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 un published 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 ord er 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 substan tial 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

as sessment 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 constitutio nal 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 becau se the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of MICHAEL L. MANGO, an attorney at law.

For the order: *Mr. Frederick C. Vonhof.*

November 20, 1961.

Name of respondent stricken from roll of attorneys at law.
WILLARD BAY RESERVOIRLatitude: 41.377Longitude: -112.083Elevation: 4203

WILLARD BAY RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ben Lomond Peak Site Page...



Ben Lomond Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ben Lomond Trail Site Page...



Ben Lomond Trail

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Little Bear Site Page...



Little Bear
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Jack K. SAVINA, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 29,912.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

May 23, 1975.

*Colonel Victor A. DeFiori, Major James Kucera,*and *Captain Barry J. Wendt*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Steven M. Werner*and *Captain William A. Poore*were on the pleadings for the Appellee, United States.

OPINION OP THE COURT

per CURIAM:

The staff judge advocate’s post-trial review erroneously states that the accused’s company commander, Captain Nelson, testified “the accused was immature and less than truthful in most of his dealings.” In fact, Captain Nelson testified to that effect concerning one Private Uhrig, a witness in the case. As the accused denied committing the offense charged, a substantial issue of credibility existed on the record. The review is unacceptable, therefore, because it is “misleading on an important point.” *United States v. Samuels,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 238, 239, 46 C.M.R. 238, 239 (1973); *United States v. Cruse,*21 U.S.C.M.A. 286, 288, 45 C.M.R. 60, 62 (1972).

The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed, and the record of trial is remanded to the Judge Advocate General of the Army, for return to another convening authority for a new post-trial review and action.