alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 150 (Monday, August 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17737]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary


Reestablishment of the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control 
Alternatives Workgroup

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Reestablishment.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), after consultation 
with the General Services Administration, has reestablished the Lake 
Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Alternatives Workgroup (Workgroup) for 2 
years. The Workgroup provides an opportunity for stakeholders to give 
policy and technical input on efforts to develop and implement sea 
lamprey control techniques alternative to lampricides in Lake 
Champlain.

DATES: The Council's charter will be filed under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act August 19, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Tilton, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Resources Complex, 11 Lincoln 
Street, Essex Junction, VT 05452, 802-872-0629, extension 12.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup conducts its operations in 
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. Appendix). It reports to the Secretary through the Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service) and Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife 
Management Cooperative (Cooperative) and functions solely as an 
advisory body. The Workgroup provides recommendations and advice to the 
Cooperative. Specific responsibilities of the Workgroup are to provide 
recommendations on: (1) Feasible and appropriate sea lamprey management 
methods alternative to lampricides; (2) funding priorities for research 
and/or demonstration projects; (3) facilitating coordinated research 
between Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes; and (4) development of 
requests for proposals, project proposals, and research efforts 
affecting the Lake Champlain Basin.
    The Workgroup consists of up to 20 members representing Federal and 
State agencies and stakeholders. In addition, up to five of the members 
may be special Government employees, selected for their scientific 
expertise. All members are knowledgeable about Lake Champlain fishery 
management issues, including sea lamprey control.
    The Certification for reestablishment is published below.

Certification

    I hereby certify that the Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control 
Alternatives Workgroup (Workgroup) is necessary and is in the public 
interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the 
Department of the Interior through the Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement for a Long-term Program of Sea Lamprey Control in Lake 
Champlain as published in 2001 (66 FR 46651, September 6, 2001).

    Dated: July 24, 2008.
Dirk Kempthorne,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E8-17737 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          34,572
<SECURITIES>                                    44,463
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                       270
<INVENTORY>                                     11,371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,218
<PP&E>                                          30,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,607
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,581
<SALES>                                        146,647
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,647
<CGS>                                           64,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,635
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,070
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,565
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,565
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Mark W. Be nnett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3621

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Northern District of Iowa. * Michael Lee Loisel, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 17, 2006 Filed: May 22, 2006

___________ Before BYE, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael Lee Loisel appeals the district court’s 1 imposition of a sentence of ten years of imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2). We affirm. Loisel pled guilty to possessing child pornography, but appeals his sentence of ten years arguing the district court erred in applying an enhancement under § 2252A(b)(2). Section 2252A(b)(2) provide s a person convicted of possessing child-2- pornography shall be sentenced to a minimu m of ten years of imprisonment “if such person has a prior conviction under . . . the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse or abusive se xual conduct involving a minor or a ward.” In a prior state proceeding, Loisel pledguilty to the charge of Assault with Intent to Commit Sexual Abuse (No Bod ily Injury) under Iowa law, for which he received a deferred judgment. Loisel argues this deferred judgment does not constitute a prior conviction under Io wa law for purposes of § 2252A(b)(2). Loisel’s argument, however, is forecl osed by our ruling in United States v. Storer , 413 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding defendant’s nolo contendere plea to felony lewd and lascivious conduct under Florida law along with state court’s finding of guilt, despite the withholding of adjudi cation and sentencing, constituted a prior conviction under § 2252A). In Storer , we specifically held § 2252A(b)(2) applies federal law to determine whether a state conviction qualifies as a prior conviction. Id. at 921-22. Loisel does not dispute whethe r federal law consider s a deferred judgment under state law to be a prior c onviction under § 2252A(b)(2). SeeUnited States v. Fuchness , 422 F.3d 698, 703 (8th Cir. 2005) ( holding Iowa deferred judgment for narcotics violation was prior conviction for sentencing purposes). Instead, Loisel asks us to overturn Storer . We, of course, cannot do so. See United States v. Wright , 22 F.3d 787, 788 (8th Cir. 1994) (noting we are bound by our precedent unless such precedent is overturned by the court sitting en banc). Accordingly, we conclude Loisel’s prior deferred judgment under Iowa law is a prior conviction for purposes of § 2252A(b)(2 ). We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

Case No: 09-20215

vs.

D-10 BASKARAN THANGARASAN,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

 On February 21, 2012, the government filed a “Motion for a Reduction in Sentence 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)" in the above matter. The Court has 

reviewed the motion, held a hearing, and has determined that a reduction should be granted, 

therefore, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the government’s motion is GRANTED.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant’s sentence is hereby reduced from a 57 

month term of imprisonment to time served. A new judgment will issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: March 15, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on 
March 15, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

THE HARVARD DRUG GROUP, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-CV-13083

SENIOR RESPIRATORY SOLUTIONS, INC.,

and DAVID MCDONALD,

Defendants.

/

ORDER SUSPENDING FORMAL DISCOVERY

On October 15, 2009, the court held a scheduling conference with counsel for

Plaintiff Harvard Drug Group, L.L.C. and Defendants Senior Respiratory Solutions, Inc.

and David McDonald. At the conference, counsel for both parties indicated that they

may file dispositive motions and that they had agreed to suspend formal discovery

pending resolution of these motions. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that formal discovery is suspended pending the court’s

resolution of the dispositive motions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall exchange Rule 26(a)(1)

disclosures. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The court urges counsel to also exchange

documentary evidence to a reasonably complete degree. These exchanges will not

eliminate the possibility of more detailed document discovery that may become

necessary if the dispositive motions are not granted. 

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 16, 2009

2:09-cv-13083-RHC-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 113
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-13083.HARVARDDRUG.SuspendingDiscovery.npk.wpd

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 16, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13083-RHC-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 10/16/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 114
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-31244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GARY JEFFERSON BYRD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:16-CV-1372

USDC No. 6:92-CR-60025-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 1992 Gary Jefferson Byrd, federal prisoner # 07983-035, was 

convicted of receiving child pornography through the mail and sentenced to 

serve 10 years in prison. The district court concluded that the most recent 

action he filed to challenge this conviction was an unauthorized successive 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissed it on this basis. Byrd now moves this court 

for a certificate of appealability (COA), arguing that this action is a writ of 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-31244 Document: 00514171035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2017
No. 16-31244

2

coram nobis and that he is entitled to relief on his claims concerning his 

innocence. 

Because Byrd is no longer in custody for the 1992 conviction, he cannot 

challenge it via a § 2255 motion. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 454 n.5 (5th 

Cir. 2000). He can, however, bring a writ of coram nobis to challenge this 

conviction. See United States v. Dyer, 136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Because this action is best classed as sounding in coram nobis, not § 2255, 

Byrd’s COA motion is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. 

The writ of coram nobis may be used to correct only fundamental errors 

that result in a complete miscarriage of justice. Dyer, 136 F.3d at 430. Because 

Byrd’s claims could have been presented sooner, he has not met this standard. 

See id.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-31244 Document: 00514171035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2017
#### Ex parte Thomas E. SCOTT.

No. 01-95-01556-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Sept. 19, 1996.

*767W.B. Bennie House, Houston, for Appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Houston, for Appel-lee.

Before COHEN, HEDGES and TAFT, JJ.

OPINION

COHEN, Justice.

Appellant Thomas E. Scott appeals the denial of his application for writ of habeas corpus asserting a double jeopardy bar to prosecution of a driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge against him. We affirm.

After appellant was arrested for DWI, he refused to submit to a breath test to determine his blood alcohol content. Due to his refusal, appellant’s driver’s license was suspended for 90 days pursuant to former Tex. Rev.Civ.StatAnn. art. 6701Z -5.1

Appellant was charged with driving while intoxicated in cause number 9528459. Appellant filed a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus asserting that a DWI prosecution subsequent to his license suspension was prohibited. Habeas relief was denied.

In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the DWI prosecution is barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions because it would result in multiple punishments for the same offense.

This Court has recently held that suspension of a driver’s license for a refusal to take a breath test does not bar prosecution for DWI. *Johnson v. State,*920 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, pet. filed). For the same reasons articulated in *Johnson,*we hold that the double jeopardy bar does not apply here.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has expanded the Texas Double Jeopardy Clause beyond the protections afforded by its federal counterpart in the area of prosecutorial misconduct. *See Bander v. State,*921 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Under the United States Constitution, successive prosecution is barred after a defendant’s successful motion for a mistrial only if the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial. *See Oregon v. Kennedy,*456 U.S. 667, 679, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 2091, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 ,(1982). In *Bander,*the court found that under the Texas Constitution, successive prosecution is barred after a declaration of mistrial at the defendant’s request, not only when the objectionable conduct of the prosecutor was intended to induce a motion for mistrial, but also when the prosecutor’s misconduct forced the defendant to request a mistrial. *See Bander,*921 S.W.2d at 699. This case has nothing to do with prosecutorial misconduct; thus, *Bander*does not apply here. Appellant cites nothing in the text or history of Article I, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution that convinces us to grant greater protection under that article than we allowed in *Johnson.*

We overrule appellant’s sole point of error and affirm the judgment.

1

. *See*Act of May 29, 1993, 73rd Leg., R.S., ch. 886, § 9, 1993 Tex.Gen.Laws 3515, 3525, *repealed by*Act of May 1, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 165, § 23, 1995 Tex.Gen.Laws 1025, 1871 (current version at Tex.Transp.Code § 724.035(a)(1) (Vernon 1996)).
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4012

To waive temporarily the Medicare enrollment composition rules for The

Wellness Plan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 1996

Mr. UPTON (for himself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. CAMP, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. CONYERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To waive temporarily the Medicare enrollment composition

rules for The Wellness Plan.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF MEDICARE ENROLLMENT COM4 POSITION RULES FOR THE WELLNESS PLAN.

5 The requirements of section 1876(f)(1) of the Social

6 Security Act are waived with respect to Comprehensive
2

•HR 4012 IH

1 Health Services, Inc. (doing business as The Wellness

2 Plan) for contract periods through December 31, 1999.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ALAN KING, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 09-12719

Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, 

Defendant.

/

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Scheer’s Report and

Recommendation [dkt 6], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court transfer this

case to the Eastern District of Arkansas. Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and

Recommendation, and the time period in which to do so has elapsed. 

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the court file and the Report and Recommendation. As

a result of that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and enters it as the

findings and conclusions of this Court.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the Eastern

District of Arkansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 23, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2:09-cv-12719-LPZ-DAS Doc # 7 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 28
2

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on October 23, 2009.

S/Marie E. Verlinde

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-12719-LPZ-DAS Doc # 7 Filed 10/23/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 29
1

 During the conference defense counsel indicated that he required some

discovery to allow Defendants to conduct informed negotiations. The stay of formal

discovery in no way prohibits the parties from engaging in informal discovery

exchanges. Defense counsel specifically requested applicable contracts and distributor

agreements controlling the use of signs with Plaintiff’s trademarks. Plaintiff readily

agreed to provide the relevant distributor agreement. The court leaves it to counsel to

determine how other important and easily provided discovery materials will be informally

exchanged between now and the mediation. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

PENNZOIL QUAKER STATE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13766

BLC REAL ESTATE, L.L.C., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER SUSPENDING FORMAL DISCOVERY AND SCHEDULING 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

On April 15, 2010, the court conducted a status conference in the abovecaptioned case with counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants. During the conference,

counsel for the parties indicated that a court-conducted settlement conference might

allow the parties to settle. The parties also indicated that, given the possibility of a

settlement, a stay of formal discovery would prevent the parties from expending

unnecessary resources. Accordingly, the court will schedule a settlement conference at

2:00 p.m. on April 26, 2010, with counsel for the parties and party representatives with

decision-making authority. The court will also stay formal discovery.1
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-13766.Pennzoil.Suspend.Discovery.Set.Mediation.wpd

2

Counsel also indicated that there is an unresolved issue concerning the extent of

insurance coverage with respect to one or more insurance carriers for one or more of

the defendants. The court cannot presently order, but nonetheless very strongly urges

a representative with decision-making authority to attend on behalf of any insurance

company with an acknowledged or potential obligation regarding this lawsuit, and to be

prepared to meaningfully participate in the conference.

IT IS ORDERED that discovery is STAYED until April 27, 2010. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and party representatives with decisionmaking authority appear for a settlement conference on April 27, 2010, at 2:00 p.m.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 19, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, April 19, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                        Correctional Services Corporation

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Correctional Services Corporation, (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James F. Slattery, Chief Executive 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 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/ James F. Slattery
---------------------------------
James F. Slattery
President and
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to James F. Slattery and will be retained by Correctional Services
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NOEL RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff, Case no. 09-13268

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant,

__________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court, pursuant to 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S. C.

636(b)(1)(B), and LR 72.1(b)(3), has reviewed Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder’s August 11,

2010, Report and Recommendation as well as any objections filed by the parties, and upon

review;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the

findings and conclusions of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED,

defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the findings of the Commissioner

are AFFIRMED. 

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: August 31, 2010
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of

record on this date, August 31, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager