alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Before

COOK, CAMPANELLA, and HAIGHT

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES, Appellee

v.

Sergeant LONZELL J. THREATS

United States Army, Appellant

ARMY 20110187

Headquarters, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell

Timothy Grammel, Military Judge 

Lieutenant Colonel Joseph P. Morse, Staff Judge Advocate

For Appellant: Major Vincent T. Shuler, JA; Captain Ian M. Guy, JA (on reply 

brief); Colonel Patricia A. Ham, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan F. Potter, JA; 

Captain Ian M. Guy, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA; 

Major Catherine L. Brantley, JA; Captain Jessica J. Morales, JA (on brief). 

17 October 2013

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON RECONSIDERATION

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

Per Curiam:

A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, 

contrary to his pleas, of rape, robbery, forcible sodomy, aggravated assault, assault 

consummated by a battery, and kidnapping, in violation of Articles 120, 122, 125, 

128, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 922, 925, 928, 

934 (2006) [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged 

sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for fifty years, forfeiture of all 

pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority 

awarded appellant 175 days of confinement credit. 

On 4 September 2013, we issued an opinion in this case wherein we set aside 

Charge VI and its Specification and affirmed the remaining findings of guilty. We 

then reassessed the sentence in accordance with the principles of United States v. 

Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A. 1986) and United States v. Moffeit, 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F. 

2006), to include the factors identified by Judge Baker in his concurring opinion, 
THREATS—ARMY 20110187

2

and affirmed the approved sentence. See United States v. Threats, ARMY 20110187, 

2013 WL 4875669 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 4 Sept. 2013) (summ. disp.),

On 3 October 2013, appellant asked this court to reconsider our opinion 

issued on 4 September 2013 based on additional matters submitted by appellant 

pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982). Appellant’s 

request for reconsideration is granted and we have now considered appellant’s

additional Grostefon matters in our reconsideration of this case. We find these 

matters to be without merit. 

Therefore, in consonance with our original opinion in this case, we again set 

aside Charge VI and its Specification and AFFIRM the remaining findings of guilty. 

Reassessing the sentence on the basis of the original error noted, the entire record, 

and in accordance with the principles of Sales and Moffeit, to include the factors 

identified by Judge Baker in his concurring opinion in Moffeit, the court AFFIRMS

the approved sentence. 

FOR THE COURT:

ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court 

ANTHONY O. POTTINGER

Chief Deputy Clerk of Court

FOR THE COURT:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derek Kyser, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J., at trial and sentence; Joan B. Carey and Milton L. Williams, JJ., at pretrial motions), rendered on April 11, 1984, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the indictment dismissed. *(See, People v Jones,*68 NY2d 717.) The matter is remitted to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order in favor of the accused pursuant to CPL 160.50, not less than 30 days after service of this order upon the respondent, with leave during this 30-day period to respondent to move and seek any further stay of the implementation of CPL 160.50 as in the interest of justice is required. No opinion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1721 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct reviews 

of certain budget requests of the President for the medical care accounts 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2019 

Ms. BROWNLEY of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to 

conduct reviews of certain budget requests of the President for the medical care accounts of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Healthcare 

5 Improvement Act’’. 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1721 IH

1 SEC. 2. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT 

2 OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CARE 

3 BUDGET SUBMISSIONS. 

4 Section 4 of the Veterans Health Care Budget Re5 form and Transparency Act of 2009 (Public Law 111– 

6 81; 38 U.S.C. 117 note) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 4. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF DEPART8 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CARE 

9 BUDGET SUBMISSION. 

10 ‘‘(a) REVIEW OF BUDGET SUBMISSION; REPORTS.— 

11 For each of fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022, the Comp12 troller General of the United States shall— 

13 ‘‘(1) review the budget requests for the medical 

14 care accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

15 in the budget request of the President submitted 

16 pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States 

17 Code; and 

18 ‘‘(2) submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Af19 fairs, Appropriations, and the Budget of the Senate 

20 and the House of Representatives a report or re21 ports on the results of each such review. 

22 ‘‘(b) TIMING AND SCOPE OF REPORTS.—In deter23 mining the timing and scope for the submittal of the re24 port or reports required under subsection (a), the Comp25 troller General shall consult with the Committees on VetVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:03 Mar 22, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1721.IH H1721

pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1721 IH

1 erans’ Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representa2 tives. 

3 ‘‘(c) MEDICAL CARE ACCOUNTS.—In this section, the 

4 term ‘medical care accounts of the Department of Vet5 erans Affairs’ means the following medical care accounts 

6 of the Veterans Health Administration, Department of 

7 Veterans Affairs account: 

8 ‘‘(1) Medical Services. 

9 ‘‘(2) Medical Support and Compliance. 

10 ‘‘(3) Medical Facilities. 

11 ‘‘(4) Medical Community Care.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7670 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES TERRY HOWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00279; 1:06-cv-00002-WLO)

Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: December 4, 2006

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Terry Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Terry Howell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Howell 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05339-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05339-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05339-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 36      Filed 09/28/2007     Page 1 of 1
Clear All

        21 August 2020    

                    Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 11 Receives Safety Award                 
                The “Red Rippers” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 11 were presented the 2019 Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Aviation Safety Award by Rear Adm. John F. Meier, Commander, Naval Air Force Atlantic in a ceremony at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Aug. 19.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05372-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH Document 12 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 16 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 16 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05776-RJH Document 11 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### GRETCHEN MUNROE *v.*JOSEPH L. MUNROE

*Peter B.*Reilly, in support of the petition.

*James A. Trowbridge,*in opposition.

Decided March 23, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 901 (AC 24850), is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                    OF AMBER RESOURCES COMPANY OF COLORADO
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Amber Resources Company of Colorado for the period ending June 30,
2003:

     (1) 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Delta
Petroleum Corporation.






/s/ Kevin K. Nanke
Kevin K. Nanke
Chief Financial Officer

September 29, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Delta Petroleum Corporation
and will be retained by Delta Petroleum Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Idaho Operations Office, DOE 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of financial assistance solicitation. 

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office is seeking applications for cost-shared research and development of materials or materials processing methods, in accordance with the Program Plan for the Industrial Materials for the Future Program, available at www.oit.doe.gov. This will be a national effort to research, design, develop, engineer, and test new and improved materials to achieve improvements in energy efficiency, emissions and waste reduction, productivity, product quality, and global competitiveness. 

# DATES:

The issuance date of Solicitation Number DE-PS07-01ID13985 will be on April 26, 2001. The deadline for receipt of applications will be approximately on May 31, 2001. 

# ADDRESSES:

                        The solicitation in its full text will be available on the Internet at the following URL address:                         *http://www.id.doe.gov/​doeid/​PSD/​proc-div.html or http://e-center.doe.gov.*                         Applications should be submitted to: Seb Klein, Procurement Services Division, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, 850 Energy Drive, Mail Stop 1221, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401-1563.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Seb Klein, Contract Specialist, kleinsm@id.doe gov. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The statutory authority for the program is the Federal Non-Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-577). The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number for this program is 81.086. 

R.J. Hoyles,

Director, Procurement Services Division.

[FR Doc. 01-11520 Filed 5-7-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
EXHIBIT 10.17

                             THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
                         COMDIAL CORPORATION 401(k) PLAN

         THIRD  AMENDMENT to the Comdial  Corporation  401(k)  Plan,  by Comdial
Corporation (the "Employer").

         The Employer maintains the Comdial 401(k) Plan, originally effective as
of January 1, 1989,  amended and  restated  effective as of January 1, 1997 (the
"Plan").

         The  Employer  has the power to amend the Plan and now wishes to do so.
         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:

I.       Effective  March 1, 1999, the first sentence of Section 3.3 of the Plan
         is amended to read as follows:

         The  Employer  shall make a Matching  Contribution  equal to 50% of the
         Participant's  Salary  Reduction  Contributions,   up  to  6%  of  such
         Participant's  Compensation  for the Plan Year in which the Participant
         elects to have Salary Reduction Contributions made on his behalf.

II.      In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed.

                                   * * * * * *
         To record the adoption of the Amendment  set forth above,  the Employer
has caused this document to be signed on this 8th day of February, 1999.

                                      COMDIAL CORPORATION



                                      By:   \s\ William G. Mustain
                                           -------------------------
                                               William G. Mustain
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-4 (Nos. 333-126097 and333-130557) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-115130, 333-102775, 333-98205 and 333-86856)of Pogo Producing Company of our report dated March 2, 2006 relating to theconsolidated financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas

March 2, 2006

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Jusino, Also Known as Carlos Justino, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), rendered April 7, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of having stabbed the complainant while the defendant and two accomplices, who were not apprehended, took a wallet containing some $50 in cash, a gold chain, a ring, and a sheepskin coat from him.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the submission of a verdict sheet without objection by defense counsel constituted reversible error, that the prosecutor’s remarks on summation deprived him of a fair trial, that certain testimony by two prosecution witnesses constituted inadmissible hearsay, and that his counsel’s effectiveness was impaired by the prosecutor’s failure to timely inform him that the coat recovered from the defendant did not belong to the complainant.

The defendant’s claim of error in the submission of a verdict sheet is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), *745and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(People v Monroe,*135 AD2d 741). In any event, we note that defense counsel expressly consented to the submission of the verdict sheet by initialing it at the court’s request *(cf., People v Nimmons,*72 NY2d 830).

Similarly unpreserved for appellate review are the prosecutor’s remarks during summation complained of for the first time on appeal (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, it is apparent that the prosecutor’s comments were not improper, but rather constituted fair comment upon the evidence as well as a fair response to defense counsel’s summation *(People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105; *People v Hayes,*116 AD2d 737).

The defendant’s *pro se*contention that the testimony of two civilian witnesses, who had come to the complainant’s aid immediately after the crime, to the effect that the complainant told them that he had just been stabbed and robbed, constitutes inadmissible hearsay is also unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we note that the complainant’s statement, uttered less than a block from and only moments after the commission of the crime, was admissible under the "excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule *(People v Brown,*70 NY2d 513).

Finally, to the extent that the defendant complains that his attorney’s performance was compromised by his failure to learn until late in the trial that the complainant disclaimed ownership of the coat recovered from the defendant, this matter is dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on appeal *(People v Wilcox,*147 AD2d 667). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1 to General Mills, Inc. Form 8-K dated December 12, 2005







Exhibit 10.1  



Annual Retainer for Directors 



Non-employee directors receive a
$75,000 annual retainer for their board service. The Audit Committee chair receives a
$15,000 annual retainer and other members of the Audit Committee receive a $5,000 annual
retainer. Chairs of the Compensation Committee, Corporate Governance Committee, Finance
Committee and Public Responsibility Committee each receive a $10,000 annual retainer. The
retainers can be paid quarterly in cash, paid quarterly in General Mills stock, or
deferred quarterly into a variety of book-entry investment funds, including a General
Mills stock fund.
# C_2004288EN.01000601.xml

| 25.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/6

---

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE (CN)

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE

(Classification of goods)

Explanatory notes adopted in accordance with the procedure defined in Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1558/2004 (2)

1

2

(2004/C 288/06)

The ‘Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities’ (3) shall be amended as follows:

3

On page 354 the following text is to be inserted:

| ‘9501 00 | Wheeled toys designed to be ridden by children (for example, tricycles, scooters, pedal cars); dolls' carriages |
| --- | --- |
| 9501 00 90 | Other

  This subheading includes wheeled toys powered by internal combustion piston engines designed to be ridden by children, so-called “Quad vehicles”, provided that the following limits are not exceeded:






  — | a speed not exceeding 20 km/h, |

‘9501 00

Wheeled toys designed to be ridden by children (for example, tricycles, scooters, pedal cars); dolls' carriages

9501 00 90

Other

This subheading includes wheeled toys powered by internal combustion piston engines designed to be ridden by children, so-called “Quad vehicles”, provided that the following limits are not exceeded:

—

a speed not exceeding 20 km/h,

| — | a net weight not exceeding 50 kg, |
| --- | --- |

—

a net weight not exceeding 50 kg,

| — | a cylinder capacity not exceeding 49 cm3, |
| --- | --- |

—

a cylinder capacity not exceeding 49 cm3,

| — | one-speed transmission, |
| --- | --- |

—

one-speed transmission,

| — | only one back-wheel brake system. |
| --- | --- |

—

only one back-wheel brake system.

Unlike most of the wheeled toys classified in this subheading a “Quad vehicle” is designed for being used in rough terrain.

Whenever one of the above criteria is not met, the “Quad vehicles” must be classified in heading 8703.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 283, 2.9.2004, p. 7.

2

(3)  OJ C 256, 23.10.2002, p. 1.

3

---