alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael YOUNG, Appellant.

No. 95-4149SD.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 1996.

Decided May 29, 1996.

*335John J. Simpson, Winner, SD, for appellant.

David L. Zuercher, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MAGILL, Circuit Judge, and VAN SICKLE,* District Judge.

*

The Hon. Bruce M. Van Sickle, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Michael Young was convicted in the District Court1 of assaulting, resisting, or impeding a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. He was sentenced to four years’ probation, and a fine of $500.00 and a special assessment of $50.00 were imposed. Young appeals, arguing that the government did not prove that the other person involved in the altercation shown by the evidence at trial was a federal officer. We affirm.

The person claimed by the United States, and found by the District Court, to be a federal officer within the meaning of § 111 was a man named John Miller. Mr. Miller was not an employee of the United States. He was a Rosebud Sioux Tribe police officer. The Department of the Interior, however, had a contract with the tribe for the performance of law-enforcement functions. Such contracts are authorized by 25 U.S.C. § 450h, known as Public Law 93-638. In addition, 25 U.S.C. § 2804(a) provides that the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Interior Department may enter into an agreement for the use of tribal personnel to enforce federal or tribal law. And, under 25 U.S.C. § 2804(f), such persons, though not otherwise federal employees, are employees of the Department of the Interior for purposes of § 111 of Title 18 when acting under authority granted by the Secretary under 25 U.S.C. § 2804(a). See *United States v. Schrader,*10 F.3d 1345 (8th Cir.1993).

It is doubtless true, as Young argues, that not every person employed to carry out a “Public Law 638 contract” fits this definition. But the particular contract relevant to this ease was in evidence as an exhibit at trial, and it does authorize the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, through employees hired for the purpose, to perform law-enforcement functions that would otherwise be performed by BIA officers. It is undisputed that officer Miller was such a person. He was acting'pursuant to authority given to the tribe by its contract with the Department of the Interior. He is thus a federal officer within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 111 by the express words of 25 U.S.C. § 2804(f).

Young also argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish an assault, and that certain exculpatory information was improperly withheld by the government before trial. We have considered these arguments and hold that they are without merit. They are not substantial enough to deserve discussion.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Charles B. Kommann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jesse Brabham, Respondent.

Submitted May 17, 2010;

decided June 3, 2010

*905Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
_____________ No. 96-1596SI

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * James Edward Banks, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: September 10, 1996 Filed: September 19, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, HEANEY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. James Edw ard Banks pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Banks contends the distri ct court improperly denied Banks's motion to suppress. A review of the record and the parties' brief s showthe ruling of the district court was correct. Because the appea l involves the straight forward application of settled principles of law, an extended discussion of the issues will serve no useful purpose. We thus affirm for the reasons stated in the district co urt's order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Effective 2.6.23

# Effective 4.7.23
# C_2010250EN.01001001.xml

| 17.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/10

---

Draft amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 — Council position

2010/C 250/07

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic and Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1525/2007 of 17 December 2007 (2), and in particular Article 37 thereof,

1

2

Whereas:

| — | the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2010 was definitively adopted on 17 December 2009 (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2010 was definitively adopted on 17 December 2009 (3),

3

| — | on 16 June 2010, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget for the financial year 2010, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 16 June 2010, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 5 to the general budget for the financial year 2010,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 5 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 was adopted on 13 September 2010.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, on 13 September 2010.

For the Council

The President

S. VANACKERE

---

(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1, with corrigenda in OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 43 and in OJ L 99, 14.4.2007, p. 18.

1

(2)  OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, p. 9.

2

(3)  OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.

3

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bertin MORALES-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-41155

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*932Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Bertin Morales-Rivera has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Morales-Rivera has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Morales-Rivera’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2010129EN.01001601.xml

| 19.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/16

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2010/C 129/08

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the European Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 4/92, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof | People's Republic of China
  Indonesia
  Taiwan
  Thailand
  Vietnam | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005 (OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2009 (OJ L 221, 25.8.2009, p. 1) | 20.11.2010 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof

People's Republic of China

Indonesia

Taiwan

Thailand

Vietnam

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1890/2005 (OJ L 302, 19.11.2005, p. 1) as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2009 (OJ L 221, 25.8.2009, p. 1)

20.11.2010

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 988 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 988

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation 
   of physical therapists in the National Health Service Corps Loan 
               Repayment Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2009

Mr. Berry (for himself and Mrs. Emerson) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the participation 
   of physical therapists in the National Health Service Corps Loan 
               Repayment Program, 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 ``Physical Therapist Student Loan 
Repayment Eligibility Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS; PARTICIPATION OF PHYSICAL 
              THERAPISTS IN LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) Mission of Corps; Definition of Primary Health Services.--
Section 331(a)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
254d(a)(3)(D)) is amended by striking ``or mental health,'' and 
inserting ``mental health, or physical therapy,''.
    (b) Loan Repayment Program.--Section 338B of the Public Health 
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l-1) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``and physician 
        assistants;'' and inserting ``physician assistants, and 
        physical therapists;''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)(1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting before the 
                semicolon the following: ``, or have a doctoral or 
                master's degree in physical therapy'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``physical 
                therapy,'' after ``mental health,''; and
                    (C) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by inserting 
                ``physical therapy,'' after ``dentistry,''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 30261]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Airport Certification 
Issues Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting of the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to discuss 
Airport Certification issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 21, 2001, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. 
Arrange for presentations by June 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., room 833, Washington, DC 
20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Mullen, FAA, Office of 
Rulemaking (ARM-205), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591, telephone (202) 267-7653, fax (202) 267-5075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
to be held on June 21, 2001, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., room 813, 
Washington, DC 20591. The agenda will include:

1. Opening Remarks
2. Committee Administration
3. ARAC Process Briefing
4. Friction Measurement and Signing Working Group Report and ARAC 
Decision
5. New Task--Rescue and Firefighting Requirements Working Group
6. Future Meetings

    Attendance is open to the interested public but will be limited to 
the space available. The FAA will arrange teleconference capability for 
individuals wishing to participate by teleconference if we receive 
notification before June 13, 2001. Arrangements to participate by 
teleconference can be made by contacting the person listed in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Callers outside the Washington 
Metropolitan area will be responsible for paying long distance charges.
    The public must make arrangements by June 13, 2001, to present oral 
statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to 
the committee at any time by providing 25 copies to the Assistant 
Executive Director, or by bringing the copies to the meeting. Public 
statements will only be considered if time permits. In addition, sign 
and oral interpretation, as well as an assistive listening device, can 
be made available, if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting. 
Arrangements may be made by contacting the person listed under the 
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2001.
Ben Castellano,
Assistant Executive Director for Airport Certification Issues, Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 01-14108 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2580EA

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, *

* v. * * Bakari Liu Adisa, * * Appellant. * Appeals from the United States

_____________ District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. No. 97-2649EA

_____________ [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America, * * Appellee, *

* v. * * Izih Lenard, Jr., * * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: November 18, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.-2- _____________ PER CURIAM. Bakari Liu Adisa and Izih Lenard, Jr. appeal their convictions and sentences for bank robbery and related weapons charges. Having reviewed the record and th e parti es' briefs, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted. First, th e distric t court properly classified Adisa's conviction for a racketeering conspirac y pr edicatedon an underlying series of four armed robberies and a hired shooting as a seri ous violent felony for sentencing purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) (1994)

. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Adisa's request for a court-appointed psychiatric exper t. Third, Lenard's assertions that a felony conviction expunge dunder Arkansas state law could not be used as the predicate for Lenard' s conviction as a felon in possession o f a weapon, that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts, and the district court improperl y enhance d his sentence for reckless endangerment and for obstruction of justice either are unsupported by the record, otherwise withou t legal merit, or both. Having rejected Adi sa's and Lenard's contentions, we affirm their convictions and sentences. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 Quarterly Report of ECO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, STEVE CONBOY, President 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 complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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








/s/ Steve Conboy


Steve Conboy


President


(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)


May 20, 2014
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00413-CR

JAMES EARL WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-623-C2

DISSENTING OPINION

There are a couple of things in this appeal that are not subject to dispute because 

they do not depend on memory or credibility evaluation. As to one, the agreement, 

there is no dispute because it is written down. The agreement was that, as part of the 

2002 plea agreement to resolve other pending charges, the State agreed it “is going to 

refuse prosecution of any other case in which the state has notice, ... unfiled cases.” The 

other thing on which there is no disagreement is that the present murder charge was 
Williams v. State Page 2

known to the State at the time of the 2002 plea agreement. In essence, at the time of the 

plea agreement, it was an unfiled case of which the State had notice.

The Court in this appeal has determined there is an ambiguity in the agreement. 

I do not find one. There may have been a unilateral mistake about what unfiled cases 

were intended to be covered by the agreement. But there was no ambiguity. There may 

even have been a mutual mistake about what unfiled cases were intended to be covered 

by the agreement. But there was no ambiguity. No one has argued a mistake. There is 

no justification to look outside the agreement to determine the intent of the parties. 

Regardless of what they intended, what was written down as the agreement of the 

parties is clear.

The agreement was that the State would not prosecute any unfiled cases of which 

it had notice. The present murder case was one about which the State had notice. I can 

find no legal justification to let the State out of the deal that it made. Because I would 

reverse the judgment of conviction and remand this proceeding to the trial court with 

instructions to dismiss the charges against Williams, I respectfully dissent.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Dissenting opinion issued and filed July 30, 2015
# FCM DATA JULY 2005
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 DIANNA GONZALES, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3 v. No. 34,449 4 JOYCE JEFFRIES, 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 7 Denise Barela Shepherd, District Judge 8 Duhigg, Cronin, Spring & Berlin, PA 9 David L. Duhigg 10 Albuquerque, NM 11 for Appellant 12 Butt, Thornton & Baehr, P.C. 13 Emily A. Franke 14 Stephanie L. Latimer 15 Albuquerque, NM 16 for Appellee 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION 18 GARCIA, Judge. 192 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for th e reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has been 2 filed, and the time for doing so has expired. 3

{2} Affirmed. 4

{3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 10

11 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 12
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1022

Natural Gas Basis Swap - NGPL Midcont - Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price of the 

NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas futures contract, as defined in Floating Price B, from the monthly 

price published by Platts Inside FERC for the location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC NGPL Midcont

published price for the corresponding contract month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the NYMEX Henry Hub Natural Gas 

futures contract final settlement price for the corresponding contract month on the last trading 

day for that contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day prior to the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.