alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2138

___________ Billy Tirrell Adams, *
* Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Ray Hobbs, Chief Deputy Director, * Arkansas Department of Corrections; * [UNPUBLISHED] John Byus, Medical Administrator, * Arkansas Department of Corrections; * Wendy Kelley, Deputy Director of * Treatment, Arkansas Department of * Corrections; Richard Clark, Dr., East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * Charlotte Green, Infirmary Manager, * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * Greg Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas * Regional Unit, ADC, *
* Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 19, 2010 Filed: November 29, 2010

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, Unit ed States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2- Inmate Billy Tirrell Adams appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that the claims against the Arkansas Department of Corr ection defendants wereproperly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, seeKing v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr. , 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.) (de novo sta ndard of review), cert. denied , 79 U.S.L.W. 3226 (U.S. Oct. 12, 2010), but we modify the dismissal of those claims to be without prejudice, seeCalico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1998). As to the remaining claims ag ainst Charlotte Green and Dr. Richard Clark, we agree with the district court that Adam s failed to create tria lworthy issues. See Davis v. Oregon County, Mo. , 607 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard of re view); see also Williams v. Jackson , 600 F.3d 1007, 1014 (8th Cir. 2010) (deliberate indifference claim re quires showing more than even gross negligence); Buckley v. Barlow , 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (failure to process grievances, without mo re, is not actionable under § 1983). To the extent Adams is arguing that summary judgment was premature and that the record established deliberate indifference by Dr . Joseph Hughes, Adams did not seek a continuance under Federal Ru le of Civil Procedure 56(f) by filing an affidavit showing what facts further discovery might uncover, see Ballard v. Heineman , 548 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (8th Cir. 2008), and he also did not seek leave to add Dr. Hughes as a defendant. Accordingly, we affirm . We also deny Adams’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.

______________________________
Erasmo SANTA, Jr., petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-6793.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
GOVERNMENT OF BELIZE, petitioner, v. BCB HOLDINGS LIMITED, et al.

No. 16-136.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
II-00547

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

James Massey <drmassey@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 3:13 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

James Massey

3310 SW Vista Dr.

Portland, OR 97225
II-00920

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

golda michelson <goldamichelson@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:03 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC PIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (PIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

golda michelson

106 Manor Rd

Fairfax, CA 94930
# C_2010063EN.01002401.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Appeal brought on 7 December 2009 by the Portuguese Republic against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA v Commission

(Case C-506/09 P)

2010/C 63/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, C. Guerra Santos, J. Gomes, P. Rocha, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | grant the appeal brought by the Portuguese authorities by staying the determination of this case pending delivery of judgment by the General Court, inasmuch as in the third-party proceedings it is necessary to argue not only the law but also the facts of the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the appeal brought by the Portuguese authorities by staying the determination of this case pending delivery of judgment by the General Court, inasmuch as in the third-party proceedings it is necessary to argue not only the law but also the facts of the case;

| — | set aside the judgment given on 23 September in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA v Commission by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by which that court annulled Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 refusing Transnáutica's application for repayment and remission of customs debts; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment given on 23 September in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA v Commission by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities by which that court annulled Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 refusing Transnáutica's application for repayment and remission of customs debts;

| — | order Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred when it concluded that the Portuguese customs authorities were at fault in the setting and monitoring of the comprehensive guarantee used in the transit operations at issue.

The appellant also submits that it is impossible to establish any causal link between the errors allegedly committed by the Portuguese authorities and the later removal of the goods from customs supervision and maintains that, by concluding otherwise, the Court of First Instance has contravened European Union law.

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15443]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory 
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will 
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Biological Response Modifiers Advisory 
Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and 
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 13, 2001, 8:30 a.m. 
to 4 p.m.
    Location: Holiday Inn, Versailles Ballrooms I and II, 8120 
Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD.
    Contact: Gail Dapolito or Rosanna L. Harvey (HFM-71), Food and Drug 
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-0314, 
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 12389. Please call the 
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will meet to: (1) Discuss responses to the 
March 6, 2000, FDA gene therapy letter (http://www.fda.gov/cber/letters.htm) relating to adenovirus vector titer measurements and 
replication competent adenovirus levels reporting, and (2) hear updates 
on the NIH final action on serious adverse reporting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or 
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. 
Written submissions may be made to the contact person by July 6, 2001. 
Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between 
approximately 11 a.m. and 12 noon. Time allotted for each presentation 
may be limited. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should 
notify the contact person before July 6, 2001, and submit a brief 
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish 
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an 
indication of the approximate time requested to make their 
presentation.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 12, 2001.
Linda A. Suydam,
Senior Associate Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 01-15443 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
SIERRA NEVADA ADVISORS, INC.
5505 E. Carson Street, Ste. 341 Lakewood, CA 90713
Phone (562) 421-2063 Fax (562) 421-7443


October 21, 1999

Mr. Kent A. Evans,
President Millennia Automated Products, Inc.
236 S. Rainbow Blvd., Ste. C-489
Las Vegas, Nevada 89128


Dear Mr. Evans:


This letter agreement (the "Agreement") shall confirm the
engagement of Sierra Nevada Advisors, Inc. ("Sierra") to serve as
Corporate Finance Advisor, whereby "Sierra" will advise
"Millennia" with regards to issues such as the raising of funds
as a public company, introducing potential acquisition candidates
and introducing "Millennia" to potential investors.
I
"Sierra" agrees to commit at least 40 hours per month to
completing the aforementioned duties, for a period of 6 months
beginning at the signing of this Agreement.

"Millennia" agrees to pay "Sierra" the sum of $30,000 in order to
secure the Advisory services of "Sierra", to be paid at the
signing of this agreement.


Yours truly
SIERRA NEVADA ADVISORS, INC.


/s/   D. MIHRAN FREELAND
By:  D. Mihran Freeland
President


MILLENNIA AUTOMATED PRODUCTS, INC.

Agreed on this 21st day of October, 1999.


/s/   KENT A. EVANS
By:  Kent A. Evans
President
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133270 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133270 

 COA: 274454 

Genesee CC: 06-018283-FH 

PAMELA GERETTE LONG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0618 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
# C_2011355EN.01000401.xml

| 3.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-454/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid for New Interline SpA - Recovery)

2011/C 355/05

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieir, acting as Agent, P. Gentili and B. Tidore, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline (notified under document number C(2008) 1321)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

www.cftc.gov

Open Meeting of the Commission – Thursday, July 11, 2019 – 10:00 a.m. 

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Opening Statements

Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo

Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz

Commissioner Rostin Behnam

Commissioner Dawn DeBerry Stump

Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

3. First Staff Presentation: Proposed Rule – Registration with Alternative Compliance 

for Non-U.S. Derivatives Clearing Organizations

Brian Bussey, Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) 

Eileen Donovan, DCR 

Parisa Abadi, DCR

August Imholtz, DCR 

Abigail Knauff, DCR

Motion / Commissioners’ Questions / Commissioners’ Discussion / Vote

4. Second Staff Presentation: Supplemental Proposal – Exemption from Derivatives 

Clearing Organization Registration

Brian Bussey, Division of Clearing and Risk (DCR) 

Eileen Donovan, DCR

Parisa Abadi, DCR

August Imholtz, DCR 

Abigail Knauff, DCR

Motion / Commissioners’ Questions / Commissioners’ Discussion / Vote

5. Adjournment
1143.

#### SANFORD *v.*THE STATE.

The scienter is an indispensable essential of the offense of receiving stolen goods, and conviction of this offense is not authorized except where the guilty knowledge of the accused is established beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of guilt, arising from the recent possession of stolen goods, was rebutted by the State’s own evidence; and for this reason the State failed to establish the defendant’s guilt.

Accusation of receiving stolen goods, from city court of Macon —Judge Hodges. March 14, 1908.

Submitted June 9,

Decided June 18, 1908.

*Nottingham &*McClellan, for plaintiff in error.

*William*Brunson, solicitor-general, contra.

Russell, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of receiving-stolen goods; the property alleged to have been stolen being certain cutlery, taken from the Southern Bailway Company. The evidence disclosed that the principal thieves and this defendant were eoemployees of that company. The former were truckmen, while he was employed to help unload freight inside of freight-cars, and to place upon trucks the freight thus being unloaded. After the trucks were thus loaded the truckmen conveyed the freight into the depot. Shortly after the theft the plaintiff in error was found *450in possession of one of the stolen knives; and it was proved, that he received it from one of the principal thieves; but, as there was no evidence that he knew that the knife had been stolen, the verdict of guilty, in our opinion, was unauthorized. It is insisted that the circumstance that the knife was marked with the name of a mercantile firm in another city was sufficient to bring home to him knowledge of the fact that the knife had been stolen. To us this circumstance seems utterly inconclusive, or, to say the least of it, it is a circumstance as consistent with innocence as guilt. The scienter is an essential of the offense of receiving stolen goods, and must be not only alleged, but proved. The receiving of stolen goods, without knowledge that they are stolen, or any reasonable ground to suspect that they are stolen, is no offense in law; the receiving of stolen goods with knowledge that the property in question is the fruit of a larceny renders the recipient as guilty as the thief. In every case, therefore, of receiving stolen goods it is indispensable that the guilty knowledge of the accused be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that it does not so appear in this ease. The testimony of the State’s own witness is positive that the plaintiff in error knew nothing of the theft, at the time that he accepted, as a gift, the knife afterwards found in his possession. Tlie evidence of guilty knowledge being insufficient to authorize the conviction, the court erred in refusing a new trial. *Judgment reversed.*
Keith Allen DEATON, petitioner, v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 17-5848.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 5, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
PRINCIPAL INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., petitioners, v. Casandra HARRISON, et al.

No. 15-1399.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
Barry SPENCER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7413.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
# C_2011063EN.01002402.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Order of the President of the Court of 1 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy)) — Lucio Rubano v Regione Campania, Comune di Cusano Mutri

(Case C-60/09) (1)

1

2011/C 63/44

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.

1

---
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1699 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that foreign countries 

have engaged in unfair trade practices in the United States with regards 

to paper products. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. KAGEN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

foreign countries have engaged in unfair trade practices 

in the United States with regards to paper products. 

Whereas the ability of the United States paper industry to 

remain competitive has been undercut by the dumping of 

illegal foreign paper imports into the domestic market; 

Whereas, on November 10, 2008, the United States International Trade Commission found, in agreement with the 

United States Department of Commerce, that lightweight 

thermal paper from China and Germany was being illegally dumped into the United States market; 

Whereas, on September 21, 2010, the United States Department of Commerce made the determination that certain 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1699 IH 

coated papers from China and Indonesia were being illegally dumped into the United States market; and 

Whereas the International Trade Commission has imposed increased tariffs on paper products for which it has determined were intentionally undercutting the ability of 

United States paper manufacturers to be competitive in 

a global market: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) encourages the International Trade Com3 mission to give the same consideration to the pend4 ing determination of certain coated paper products 

5 as it had previously in the case of lightweight ther6 mal paper; 

7 (2) supports the ongoing efforts of the United 

8 States paper industry to ensure that competition 

9 within the global paper market is kept on a level 

10 playing field; and 

11 (3) recognizes the importance and vital con12 tributions of the United States paper industry to in13 novation, employment, and the very fabric of life in 

14 the United States. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Ian ORNSTEIN, petitioner, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON.

No. 17-866.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division Two denied.