alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America and Donald E. Merrill, Agent of the Internal Revenue Service, Appellees, v. Lee GROSKPH, Manager, First National Bank of the Black Hills, Robinsdale Branch, Robert C. Olson, Appellant.

No. 79-1961.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 26, 1980.

Decided March 5, 1980.

Robert C. Olson, pro se.

M. Carr Ferguson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Charles E. Brookhart, Philip I. Brennan, Attys., Tax Division, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. and Terry L. Pechota, U. S. Atty., for appellees.

Before HEANEY, ROSS and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In *United States v. Olson,*604 F.2d 29 (8th Cir. 1979), this court held taxpayer-in-tervenor’s attack on an IRS summons was moot because the district court had on March 21, 1979, ordered enforcement, and the bank had fully complied with the summons and district court order. *Id.*at 31, *citing United States v. Toy National Bank,*No. 79-1260 (8th Cir. June 22,1979) (unpublished slip opinion); *United States v. First National Bank of Sturgis, S. D.,*587 F.2d 909, 910 (8th Cir. 1978); *Barney v. United States,*568 F.2d 116, 117 (8th Cir. 1978). This court added that it had considered taxpayer’s claims on appeal and agreed with the district court’s holding.

The government suggested that this court vacate the order enforcing the summons to prevent the spawning of legal consequences by enforcement and to leave the parties free to challenge the introduction of the summoned and produced materials at any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding, *citing Donaldson v. United States,*400 U.S. 517, 531, 91 S.Ct. 534, 542, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971), *United States v. Blue,*384 U.S. 251, 86 S.Ct. 1416, 16 L.Ed.2d 510 (1966), and *United States v. Munsingwear,*340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); *United States v. Lyons,*442 F.2d 1144 (1st Cir. 1971). Because of our belief that the matter should be presented to the district court first, we remanded.

Upon remand the government moved to vacate the order enforcing the summons; the court vacated its order of March 21, 1979. The taxpayer then filed this appeal following denial of various post judgment orders.

*708We find the instant appeal is totally without merit. First, the order we are asked to review was approved in the earlier decision of this court and the case was remanded solely to allow the district court to consider the entry of such an order. Second, although this court dismissed the attack on the summons as moot in the first appeal, we considered taxpayer’s claims and agreed with the holding of the district court. Third, and most important, the order entered which is the subject of this appeal is to taxpayer’s benefit, because it leaves him free to challenge the introduction of the materials obtained pursuant to the summons in any future proceedings. Therefore, the appeal should be and hereby is dismissed.

It is so ordered.
#### BERNICE SURGICK, ETC. v. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY.

February 27, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 213

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL EUGENE PETTAWAY.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 4.377

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 172247 dated June 05, 2019

 

For Rendering

 

telematic services

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until June 05, 2024.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated February 26, 2019 No. 111-рчс

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF   COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26770]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,032]


AGY Holding Corporation, Huntingdon, PA; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration

    By application dated June 1, 2010 a union official requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding the eligibility of workers and former workers 
of AGY Holding Corporation, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, to apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). On June 21, 2010, the Department 
issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration. The Department's Notice of affirmative determination 
was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2010, 2010 (75 FR 
38126).
    Workers at the subject firm are engaged in employment related to 
the production of fine yarns and specialty glass yarns. The worker 
group does not include on-site leased workers.
    Based on the information obtained during the reconsideration 
investigation, the Department determines that the subject firm shifted 
abroad a meaningful proportion of production of articles like or 
directly competitive with the fine yarns and/or specialty glass yarns 
produced by the workers.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained during the 
reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers of AGY Holding 
Corporation, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, who are engaged in employment 
related to the production of fine yarns and specialty glass yarns, meet 
the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the 
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 
U.S.C. 2273, I make the following certification:

    All workers of AGY Holding Corporation, Huntingdon, 
Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after June 4, 2008, through two years from the date 
of this revised certification, and all workers in the group 
threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date 
of certification through two years from the date of certification, 
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of 
Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of October, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-26770 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 
 
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 8, 2010, ISP Freetown Fine Chemicals, 238 South Main Street, Assonet, Massachusetts 02702, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
Schedule2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine (7396)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIPhenylacetone (8501)
II
 The company plans to manufacture bulk API, for distribution to its customers. The bulk 2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine will be used for conversion into non-controlled substances. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than December 20, 2010. Dated: October 8, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-26440 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 14, 2010, GE Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004-1412, made application by                           ( print page 64745)                        renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                

The company plans to manufacture a radioactive product used in diagnostic imaging in the diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease and for manufacture in bulk for investigational new drug (IND) submission and clinical trials.

Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a).

Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; and must be filed no later than December 20, 2010.

Dated: October 8, 2010.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-26443 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDERICK KEITH SINGLETON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-179, CA-99-1397) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 23, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Frederick Keith Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on December 20, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on December 21, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Frederick Keith Singleton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Singleton , Nos. CR-95-179; CA99-1397 (E.D. Va. Dec. 21, 1999 & Jan. 5, 2000). * We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-3024 September Term, 2020

1:02-cr-00045-RCL-1

Filed On: July 6, 2021

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Keith B. McGill,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Wilkins, and Rao, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the memoranda of law and fact filed by the parties. 

The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion.

See D.C. Cir. Rule 36. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion to file an

appendix, the response thereto, the lodged appendix, the sealed appendix, the motion

for leave to file a supplemental appendix, and the lodged supplemental appendix, it is

ORDERED that the motions to file an appendix and supplemental appendix be

granted. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged appendix and supplemental appendix. 

It is

FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 22, 2021

order denying appellant’s motion for compassionate release be affirmed. Appellant

requested compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which, in pertinent

part, allows a court to reduce a defendant’s sentence if it determines “extraordinary and

compelling reasons” warrant release after considering relevant factors in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a). In denying appellant’s motion, the district court considered the relevant §

3553(a) factors, specifically citing the nature and circumstances of appellant’s

underlying offenses, including attempted murder of a government witness; appellant’s

history and characteristics, including his conduct in prison and prior criminal history; the

need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of appellant’s offenses,

promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate deterrence

to criminal conduct; the need to protect the public from further crimes committed by
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-3024 September Term, 2020

appellant; and the need to provide appellant with medical care. After considering the §

3553(a) factors, the district court concluded that even if appellant had demonstrated

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief, the sentencing factors on balance did

not weigh in favor of release. Appellant has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion. See United States v. Long, 997 F.3d 342, 352 (D.C.

Cir. 2021) (concluding that abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard of review in

compassionate release appeals). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
#### MARILYN PERSICO, ET AL. v. PAUL MEDEIROS, ET AL.

November 21, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0259 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. DAVID JOSEPH CORD ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 3, 202 2 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 27 2022

01/27/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0259
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001343 27-APR-2018 08:04 AM
#### MARY ELLEN LAKE ZIMMER v. STEVEN P. LAKE, TRUSTEE.

January 21, 1987.

Petition for certification granted.
#### THE TAX INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR, v. VINCENT J. MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND FINANCE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Submitted May 2, 1944

Decided January 16, 1945.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Donges and Perskie.

Eor the prosecutor, *Saul A. Wittes.*

Eor the defendants, *Philip J. Schotland*and *Thomas L. Parsonnet.*

Per Curiam.

Prosecutor seeks a review of a tax sale held by the authorized officer of the City of Newark, in which a property of prosecutor was sold.

It is undisputed that taxes remained unpaid for the year 1942 on July 1st, 1943. The challenge relates to the alleged premature preparation of the tax sale list, the alleged premature publication of the notice of tax sale, and the alleged premature holding of the sale. It is undisputed that the notice of sale was published on June 15th, June 22d, June 29th and July 6th, 1943, and that the' sale was held on July 13th, 1943." An officer of the prosecutor protested the procedure and, prior to the sale, requested the deputy director of finance to start anew and re-advertise a new sale after July 1st, 1943. On August 12th, 1943, prosecutor tendered *433to the director of finance the sum of $252.61, being the amount of taxes for 1942, with interest thereon to that date, but omitted the sum of $4, the costs of sale. This offer was rejected and the check of prosecutor returned to it. This writ was allowed on March 28th, 1944.

In the instant case the only interest of prosecutor involves the question of the payment of $4, the costs of sale. Had the advertisement been postponed until July 1st, 1943, prosecutor would have no possible ground for challenge because, admittedly, the taxes were due and unpaid on the day of sale and for about a month thereafter.

We are of the opinion that inasmuch as no substantial injury to prosecutor has been shown, and inasmuch as a disservice to the public interest would result if prosecutor’s position were sustained, the writ should be dismissed.

In *Tax Investment Corp.*v. *Hunziker,*126 *N. J. L.*412, *allocatur*was denied because there was no substantial injury to prosecutor and because of possible material loss to the municipality. So here, the same situation exists. If the sale should be declared invalid, prosecutor would save the costs of sale, and the municipality would be confronted with numberless challenges.

Writs being discretionary, their dismissal, as improvidently granted, where laches (not here asserted) appear, or substantial injury to the public will result, without substantial injury to prosecutor, has been the practice of this court. *Red Oaks, Inc.,*v. *Dorez, Inc.,*117 *N. J. L.*280; *O’Leary*v. *Common Council, &c., 8 N. J. Mis. R.*559; *Weissinger*v. *Mayor, &c.,*10 *Id.*1093.

The writ is dismissed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7806

ANTHONY VON LONGMORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN

MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(9:05-cv-02112)

Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 23, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Von Longmore, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

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

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Von Longmore seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

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

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

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

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Longmore has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
585 A.2d 369

#### ROBERT REDDY v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.