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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1869

CHRISTOPHER MADDOX MOSSBURG,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-01633-RWT)

Submitted: January 4, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017

Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Maddox Mossburg, Appellant Pro Se. Michele J. 

McDonald, Alexis Burrell Rohde, Assistant Attorneys General, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Maddox Mossburg appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Mossburg v. Maryland, No. 8:15-cv-01633-RWT (D. Md. 

June 29, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### KEEGAN et al., Appellants, v. SMITH, Respondent.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

December 12, 1896.)

Action by James Keegan 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.
#### Edward Tetz, Jr., Appellant, v Thomas A. Dexter, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*for specific performance *80of an alleged contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Green, J.), dated September 30, 1986, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and canceled the *lis pendens*filed against the real property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The purchase offer signed by the parties failed to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]) since it did not adequately identify the property in question, its purchase price, the commencement date of the balloon mortgage or the terms of the planning board approval listed as a condition of the sale. Moreover, the purchase offer contained a provision wherein the parties specifically agreed that it was subject to the preparation and execution of a more formal contract.

Because material terms of the offer were omitted or were left for future negotiations and because the parties specifically noted that a more formal contract was to follow, the purchase offer failed to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds *(see, Willmott v Giarraputo,*5 NY2d 250; *Tamir v Greenberg,*119 AD2d 665, *lv denied*68 NY2d 607; *Sheehan v Culotta,*99 AD2d 544; *Read v Henzel,*67 AD2d 186). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Sehm, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.—burglary, third degree, and other offenses.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:(1) Form S-8 No. 333-121551 pertaining to the First Acceptance Corporation Employee Stock PurchasePlan,(2) Form S-8 No. 333-115601 pertaining to the First Acceptance Corporation 2002 Long Term IncentivePlan,(3) Form S-8 No. 333-102210 pertaining to the Liberte Investors, Inc. 2002 Long Term Incentive PlanOption Granted to Donald J. Edwards Pursuant to his Employment Agreement;of ourreports dated September 13, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andschedules of First Acceptance Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of First Acceptance Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended June 30, 2007./s/ Ernst & Young LLPNashville, Tennessee
PENALTY ASSESSMENT FACTORS APPLICABLE TO VIOLATIONS OF 

33 U.S.C. § 1321 (b)(3)

Written By CDR M. Hammond

In determining an appropriate civil penalty amount for violations 

found proved under Title 33 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 

1321(b)(3) for a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance into the 

navigable waters of the U.S., Hearing Officers are required by 33 

U.S.C. § 1321(b)(8) to consider the following:

“the seriousness of the violation, the economic benefit to the violator, 

if any, resulting from the violation, the degree of culpability 

involved, any other penalty for the same incident, any history of 

prior violations, the nature, extent, and degree of success of any 

efforts of the violator to minimize or mitigate the effects of the 

discharge, the economic impact of the penalty on the violator, and 

any other matters as justice may require.”

In considering these factors, (whether aggravating or mitigating), 

Hearing Officers can only rely on the information contained within 

the case file; (i.e., the Coast Guard’s enforcement activity case and 

the evidence the party presents). The case file should contain a 

sufficient amount of detail in order for the Hearing Officer to fully 

address these considerations. In addition to specific details of the 

discharge (i.e., product type, source, amount, location responsible 

party, cause, etc.), the case file should contain among other factors 

information regarding the responsible party’s culpability, the impact 

of the discharge, the party’s response and mitigating efforts (or lack 

thereof); and the success of such efforts to minimize the impact of the 

discharge. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the degree of 

a party’s culpability for a discharge, and their actions taken to 

minimize environmental impact could significantly influence the 

Hearing officer’s determination of the final assessed civil penalty 

amount.
Because the Hearing Officer must by law, consider several factors in 

determining the final assessed penalty amount for violations under 

1321(b)(3), careful attention should be given to documenting 

important details in support of the above factors when putting a case 

together, or when responding to a preliminary assessment letter. 

This will greatly assist the Hearing Officer in formulating an 

appropriate final assessment commensurate with the circumstances 

of each case while supporting the overarching goal of compelling 

compliance and deterring future violations.
Listen

# Joseph Salvador Palm

## CSSBMB Commissioner

In 2022, Joseph was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden as the Regional Director for Region 7 of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which encompasses the states of Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa and 9 federally recognized tribes.  In addition, recently he was also appointed the Regional Director for HHS Region 2, which encompasses the states of New York and New Jersey and the territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, in addition to 8 federally recognized tribes.

Previously, from 2009-22, Joseph was the Chief of the Office of Minority Health, for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (MODHSS). As the Chief, Joseph was the key advisor to the MODHSS Director on various health matters that affected minorities; he also served as a liaison to the Missouri General Assembly while also working with statewide local public health agencies and elected officials.  Joseph ran the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funded opioid and homicide prevention program, and he also ran the COVID-19 mobile testing and vaccination sites across the State of Missouri. In addition, Joseph worked on the ground during the Ferguson, Joplin, and various Missouri major flood daily recovery operations.

Prior to working for MODHSS, Joseph worked as the Assistant to the Chief of Staff in the City of Saint Louis Mayor’s Office, as a Legislative Researcher in the Missouri State Capitol, and as an assistant to the Chief of Staff in the Missouri 1st Congressional District Office. Joseph began his career as a firefighter for the City of Saint Louis in Missouri, and he continues to live by the motto “Seeking Opportunities To Serve-STLFD!”

Joseph is a native to the City of Saint Louis, Missouri, although his family roots are in Homestown, Missouri (The Bootheel).  He received his Associates Degree from Forest Park Community College, and Bachelor of Communications Studies, and master’s degree in Public Health from Saint Louis University. 

-  Our Mission 
-  Commissioners 
-  Offices and Staff 
-  Careers 
-  Acquisition Opportunities 
-  Rankin Memorial Library 
-  FAQs
#### Mitchell Benesowitz, Appellant, v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 30, 2007;

decided May 3, 2007

Motion by American Council of Life Insurers et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on consideration of the certified question herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief may be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### Boyle v. Van Tassel.

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 2, 1890.)

Appeal—Review—Weight of Evidence.

An appellate court will not disturb a judgment rendered on conflicting evidence.

Appeal from eleventh district court.

Action by William J. Boyle against Emory M. Van Tassel for commissions as broker. From a judgment in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appeals.

Argued before Larremorb, O. J., and Bookstaver, J.

*Jas. Hillhouse,*for appellant. *W. L. Snyder,*for respondent.

Larremorb, C. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in plaintiff’s favor for commissions as a broker or dealer in machinery. It is shown by the evidence that the plaintiff brought a customer who bought the boiler in question, for which the defendant received $800. Plaintiff testified that the defendant, through his manager, Hillhouse, agreed that, if plaintiff found a purchaser for the boiler, he would pay him 10 per cent, of the purchase price. The sale was consummated, and, for a refusal on the part of the defendant to pay such commission, this action was brought.

The main question in this case is one of fact, as to the authority of Hill-house to bind the defendant. It is a well-settled question of practice that an appellate court will not disturb a judgment rendered upon disputed facts. The court below has found, upon the whole testimony, that the agreement was made, plaintiff did act in good faith, procured a customer, and defendant got the fruits of his labor, and that the agency was established. *Leslie*v. *Insurance Co.,*63 N. Y. 27; *Dunn*v. *Insurance Co.,*19 Wkly. Dig. 531; *Warburton*v. *Camp,*112 N. Y. 683, 20 N. E. Rep. 592; *Mayer*v. *Dean,*115 N. Y. 556, 22 N. E. Rep. 261. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
ACHO - A CANAL HEADWORKSLatitude: 42.238Longitude: -121.803Elevation: None

ACHO - A Canal Headworks

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Swan Lake Mtn Site Page...



Swan Lake Mtn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cold Springs Camp Site Page...



Cold Springs Camp
# C_2021484EN.01000101.xml

| 2.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 484/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 484/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10451 – DP WORLD / IMPERIAL LOGISTICS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 484/01)

On 22 November 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 32021M10451. 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 32021M10451. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel LUNA-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10802.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

Jacki Lynn Ireland, Esq., USPX—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bruce A. Alldredge, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Leonel Luna-Perez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We dismiss this appeal.

Luna-Perez contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw the guilty plea, despite the existence of intervening case law that rendered the guilty plea invalid. This contention lacks merit, because of this court’s opinion in *Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales,*477 F.3d 691 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Absent any other grounds for invalidating the guilty plea, we enforce the waiver and dismiss Luna-Perez’s appeal. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Nyack Hospital, Respondent, v Encompass Insurance Company, Appellant.

Submitted February 5, 2007;

decided March 22, 2007

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and the appeal dismissed as moot with $400 costs and $100 costs of motion.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HACKEL, GARRISON, and DALY

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Erian SEVERINOGONZALEZ

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202300165

_________________________

Decided: 28 September 2023

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: 

Yong J. Lee

Sentence adjudged 13 April 2023 by a special court-martial convened at 

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of a military 

judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1

and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Lieutenant Morgan A. Sanders, JAGC, USN
United States v. SeverinoGonzalez, NMCCA No. 202300165

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, and Appellant having not challenged the factual sufficiency of this case, 

we have determined that the findings are correct in law, the sentence is correct 

in law and fact, and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred.1

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON

Clerk of Court

 

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2383 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2383

  To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to change the eligible 
foods allowed for purchase under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
                   Program (commonly known as SNAP).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2015

Mr. Rice of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Blum, Mr. 
  Jones, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. 
Cook, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Mooney of West Virginia) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to change the eligible 
foods allowed for purchase under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
                   Program (commonly known as SNAP).

    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 ``Nutritious Options for Meals Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 3(k)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
2012(k)(1)) is amended by striking ``any food'' the first place it 
appears and all that follows through ``consumption'' the last place it 
appears, and inserting the following: ``a supplemental food of the kind 
prescribed by the Secretary under section 17(b)(14) of the Child 
Nutrition Act of 1966, or lean meat or poultry as prescribed by the 
Secretary,''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 248 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the employer health 

insurance mandate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2015 

Mr. BOUSTANY 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 repeal 

the employer health insurance mandate. 

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 ‘‘American Job Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE MAN7 DATE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 43 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking section 4980H. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 248 IH

1 (b) REPEAL OF RELATED REPORTING REQUIRE2 MENTS.—Subpart D of part III of subchapter A of chap3 ter 61 of such Code is amended by striking section 6056. 

4 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

5 (1) Section 6724(d)(1)(B) of such Code is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause 

7 (xxiii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (xxiv) 

8 and inserting ‘‘or’’, and by striking clause (xxv). 

9 (2) Section 6724(d)(2) of such Code is amend10 ed by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

11 (FF), by striking ‘‘, or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

12 (GG) and inserting a period, and by striking sub13 paragraph (HH). 

14 (3) The table of sections for chapter 43 of such 

15 Code is amended by striking the item relating to sec16 tion 4980H. 

17 (4) The table of sections for subpart D of part 

18 III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of such Code is 

19 amended by striking the item relating to section 

20 6056. 

21 (5) Section 1513 of the Patient Protection and 

22 Affordable Care Act is amended by striking sub23 section (c). 

24 (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 248 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise pro2 vided in this subsection, the amendments made by 

3 this section shall apply to months and other periods 

4 beginning after December 31, 2013. 

5 (2) REPEAL OF STUDY AND REPORT.—The 

6 amendment made by subsection (c)(5) shall take ef7 fect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-143813 on Form S-8 of CareGuide, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2008 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CareGuide, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

Des Moines, Iowa

May 8, 2008

 

 

McGladrey & Pullen, LLP is an independent member firm of RSM International,

an affiliation of separate and independent legal entities.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40762 Summary Calendar

XAVIER CANTU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN CORNYN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; ET AL,

Defendants,

VANESSA MORALES-KNIGHT; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(L-98-CV-124)

- - - - - - - - - - January 30, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Xavier Cantu appeals the district court’s

sua sponte grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §

1983 action without prejudice to his state law claims. Cantu

argues that the district court erred in denying his request to

order the Texas Office of the Attorney General to conduct an

administrative review of a child suppor t arrearage order entered2

against him. Cantu asserts that this review is authorized under 42

U.S.C. §§ 651 and 666, as wel l as under § 231.101 of the Uniform

Interstate Child Support Act adopted by Texas.

Cantu has not shown that these statutory provisions create a

private cause of action to force the Attorney General’s Office to

conduct an administrative review of an arrear age order. Neither

has he provided evidence supporting his assertion that he requested

such review and that it was denied. S ee Blessing v. Freestone
, 520

U.S. 329, 340-41 (1997). Cantu appealed the arrearage order in

state court, and he may not circumvent the state court’s judgment

here.

Cantu also asserts that Assistant Attorney General Vanessa

Mor ales-Knight infringed his right of access to the courts by

threatening him and intimidating him through the U.S. mail. This

allegation is not contained in Cantu’s second amended complaint and

he has not adequately argued or supported it on appeal. S ee Yohey

v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1983).

AFFIRMED.