alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 8**  **046**

ANTHONY DACRE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. LIEUTENANT FLEMING; SGT. MITCHELL; SGT. WILSON; SGT. RATTCLIFF; SGT. REYNOLDS , Defendant s - Appellee s , and HOGGE, Guard; BRYANT, Guard; GREEN, Guard , Defendants
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 7 :12

- cv - 00 055

- SGW

- RSB )

Submitted : April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Anthony Dacre , Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia , for App ellee s .2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Anthony Dacre seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint clarifying what claims Dacre wished to pursue against which defendants. This cour t may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

– 46 (1949). The order Dacre seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for him to cure the pleading deficiencies in the complaint that were identified by the distr ict
court. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

– 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny Dacre’s motion for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We d ispense 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.

DISMISSED
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary of Defense

# AGENCY:

Advisory Group on Electron Devices, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

Working Group C (Electro-Optics) of the DoD Advisory Group on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held at 0900, Wednesday, January 31, 2001.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elise Rabin, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices. 

The Working Group C meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This opto-electronic device area includes such programs as imaging device, infrared detectors and lasers. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout. 

In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 10(d) (1994)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public. 

Dated: January 10, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 01-1272 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 3 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 4 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 5 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 6 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 7 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 8 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 9 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 10 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 11 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 12 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 13 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 14 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05830-CM Document 18-3 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 15 of 15
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESTATE OF HENRY BARABIN;

GERALDINE BARABIN, personal

representative,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

ASTENJOHNSON, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-36142

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01454-RSL

ORDER

ESTATE OF HENRY BARABIN;

GERALDINE BARABIN,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

ASTENJOHNSON, INC.,

 Defendant,

 and

SCAPA DRYER FABRICS, INC.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-35020

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01454-RSL

FILED

MAR 25 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)

and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Christen did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, Clements and Haley 

LORINE AND WILLIAM BROWN, D/B/A 

 LAKE ANNA ELDER CARE, INC. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1646-05-4 PER CURIAM 

 NOVEMBER 22, 2005 

SHERRY JUDY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (William E. Glover; Frank K. Friedman; Glover & Dahnk; Woods 

Rogers PLC, on briefs), for appellant. 

 (Craig A. Brown; Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP, on brief), for appellee. 

 Lorine and William Brown, d/b/a Lake Anna Elder Care, Inc. (employer) appeal a 

decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that (1) employer failed to prove 

that Sherry Judy’s (claimant) claim was barred by her willful misconduct; (2) claimant proved 

she gave notice of her industrial accident to employer as required by Code § 65.2-600; and 

(3) claimant proved she sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her 

employment on September 9, 2003. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion 

and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

commission in its final opinion. See Judy v. Lorine and William Brown d/b/a Lake Anna Elder 

Care, Inc., VWC File No. 216-20-16 (June 9, 2005). We dispense with oral argument and 

summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bobbie Currie, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), rendered August 27, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Suppression of the testimony regarding the identification at the precinct house was properly denied. The hearing court concluded that the identification was not impermissibly suggestive, but was unplanned, spontaneous, and not attributable to any contrivance on the part of the police *(see, People v McLamb,*140 AD2d 717, 718; *People v Hampton,*129 AD2d 736, 737; *People v Bookhart,*117 AD2d 739, 740). We find no basis to disturb this ruling.

*596Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]). While there were certain inconsistencies in the testimony, it is well settled that the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94; *People v Ortiz,*143 AD2d 150, 151). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal, and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Ortiz, supra,*at 150; *People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88).

The contentions regarding alleged errors at trial and during summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Santiago,*52 NY2d 865, 866; *People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951, 953), or were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Williams,*109 AD2d 906, 907-908).

We have have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2019305EN.01004101.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — MAN Truck & Bus v EUIPO — Halla Holdings (MANDO)

(Case T-698/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MANDO - Earlier international and national figurative marks MAN - Earlier national word mark Man - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 305/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: MAN Truck & Bus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, and subsequently by J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Halla Holdings Corp. (Yongin-si, South Korea) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch and C. de Haas, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2017 (Case R 1919/2016-1), relating to opposition proceedings between MAN Truck & Bus and Halla Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2017 (Case R 1919/2016-1) to the extent that it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the word mark MANDO and the earlier international registration No 863 418 of the figurative mark MAN. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 July 2017 (Case R 1919/2016-1) to the extent that it concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the word mark MANDO and the earlier international registration No 863 418 of the figurative mark MAN.

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---
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 Agriculture

###### Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

          - [Docket No. 01-038-1]

# AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

We are giving notice that the Miami Animal Import Center will be unavailable for the quarantine of birds (except for confiscated or smuggled birds) from June 1, 2001, through August 31, 2001, due to facility renovations. During the closure, avian importers requiring the services of a United States Department of Agriculture animal import center for the quarantine of imported birds may utilize either the New York Animal Import Center or the Los Angeles Animal Import Center. Avian importers who need to make alternate arrangements during the temporary closure period of the Miami Animal Import Center should contact either the New York Animal Import Center, USDA, APHIS, VS, 200 Drury Lane, Rock Tavern, NY 12575, (845) 564-2950 or the Los Angeles Animal Import Center, USDA, APHIS, VS, 11850 South La Cienega Boulevard, Hawthorne, CA, 90250, (310) 725-1970. Further information regarding avian importation and quarantine is also available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/​NCIE/​ind-3000.html.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Sara Kaman, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8364.

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of May 2001.

Richard L. Dunkle,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01-12431 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2075 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2075

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 30 (legislative day, September 29), 2020

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize school-based 
                health centers, and for other purposes.

    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 ``School-Based Health Centers 
Reauthorization Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS.

    (a) Elimination of Limitation on Eligibility of Health Centers.--
            (1) Repeal.--Section 399Z-1(f)(3) of the Public Health 
        Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-5(f)(3)) is amended by striking 
        subparagraph (B).
            (2) Conforming change.--Section 399Z-1(f)(3) of the Public 
        Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-5(f)(3)) is amended by 
        striking ``Limitations'' and all that follows through ``Any 
        provider of services'' and inserting ``Limitation.--Any 
        provider of services''.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 399Z-1(l) of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280h-5(l)) is amended by striking 
``2010 through 2014'' and inserting ``2021 through 2025''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 29, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit32.2**

** **

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

** **

In connection with theannual report on Form 10-K of Lake Area Corn Processors, LLC (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robbi Buchholtz, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Robbi Buchholtz     |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Robbi Buchholtz         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Dated: March 31, 2009   |

 

----
55 East 52nd Street

New York, New York 10055

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

Submission No. 23-108

June 30, 2023

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments

Submission Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Act and Regulation 40.6 (d) 

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, and 

Commission Regulation 40.6(d), ICE Futures U.S., Inc. (“Exchange”) submits notification to the 

Commission that, during the preceding week, the Exchange corrected typographical errors in 

Resolution No. 2 to Chapter 19 to correct the contract unit for the Biofuel Outright - D3 RINs 

(OPIS) Current Year Future (“BFH”) and Biofuel Outright - D5 RINs (OPIS) Current Year Future

(“BFI”). Specifically, the amendments correct the contract unit from gallons to RINs, which is the 

unit reflected in the contracts’ terms and conditions. The contract unit amendments are nonsubstantive in nature. No other amendments were made to the resolution. The aforementioned 

corrections are detailed in Exhibit A. Corresponding corrections were also made to the Exchange’s 

Block Trade FAQ.

If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at 312-836-6745

or at patrick.swartzer@ice.com.

Sincerely,

Patrick Swartzer

Director

Market Regulation
Enc.

cc: Division of Market Oversight

New York Regional Office
Exhibit A

(In the text of the amendments below, additions are shown underscored 

and deletions are bracketed and lined through.)

Rule Contract Name

Commodity 

Code Market Type

Contract 

Size Unit of Trading

Spot Month 

Limit

Single Month 

Accountability 

Level

All Month 

Accountability 

Level

Aggregate 

1 (Positive 

Correlation)

19.A.66 Biofuel Outright - D3 RINs (OPIS) Current Year Future BFH Oil Americas 50,000 [Gallons] RINs 1,760 1,760 1,760 BFH

19.A.67 Biofuel Outright - D5 RINs (OPIS) Current Year Future BFI Oil Americas 50,000 [Gallons] RINs 10,780 10,780 10,780 BFI

[REMAINDER OF RESOLUTION UNCHANGED]
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 1 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 2 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 3 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 4 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 5 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 6 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 10 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 14 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 7:07-cv-05947-CLB Document 5-2 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 18 of 18
07-9609

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

Office of the Clerk

U.S. Courthouse

500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

 

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

United States

V.

07-cr-482

FNU LNU aka “Enrique”

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

 

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the above-entitled action is

reassigned to the calendar of

Judge Patterson

 

All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the Clerk’s Office of the

Southern District Court for filing and shall bear the assigned judge’s initials after the case number.

The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of the Notice of

Reassignment on all defendants.

J. Michael McMahon, CLERK

Dated: 11/16/7

By: Lourdes Aquino

 Deputy Clerk 

 

 

cc: Attorneys of Record 

PS REASSIGNMENT FORM 

Data Quality Control Revised: March 9, 2001

Case 1:07-cr-00482-RPP Document 13 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1