alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3854]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Marinenet, LLC

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 13, 2011, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), MarineNet, LLC 
(``MarineNet'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and 
objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: ACL Transportation Services LLC, Jeffersonville, 
IN; Ingram Barge Company, Nashville, TN; and AEP River Operations LLC, 
Chesterfield, MO. The general area of MarineNet's planned activity is 
researching, evaluating, testing and developing a process or service to 
establish and support a platform for the electronic transfer of data 
between contracting river industry trading partners (the ``value added 
network'' or ``VAN''). The VAN will provide for the ability to 
electronically transmit order, status, and invoice information between 
contracting river trading partners internal systems, promoting 
efficiency within the river industry.

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-3854 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 1000.430 Who handles appeals regarding reassumption for imminent jeopardy?

Appeals regarding reassumption of Title I-eligible PFSAs are handled by the IBIA under the procedures in 25 CFR 900.171 through 900.176. Appeals regarding reassumption of PFSAs that are not Title I-eligible are handled by the CBCA under the procedures in 48 CFR part 6101.

[75 FR 31702, June 4, 2010]
#### Rufus Ogden *v.*George Claycomb.

1. Assault and *battery—self-defense.*It is not essential to the right to maintain an action for an assault and battery, that the plaintiff should have been guilty of no provocation. It is immaterial what language he may have *366used toward the defendant, so far as the right to maintain an action is concerned.

2. And even if the plaintiff went beyond words and committed a technical assault, the acts of the defendant must still be limited to a reasonable self-defense.

3. So, if it appear, in such an action, that the plaintiff advanced upon the defendant in a threatening manner for the purpose of fighting, and a fight followed, no more violence can be used by the party attacked than a reasonable man would, under the circumstances, regard necessary for his defense. If he strikes a blow not necessary to his defense, or after all danger is past, or by way of revenge, he is guilty of an assault and battery, for which an action will lie. He will not be justified in exceeding the just bounds of self-defense, even though he desist as soon as the attacking party asks him to do so.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. Arthur A. Smith, Judge, presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Messrs. Stewart *&*Phelps, for the appellant.

Messrs. Kirkpatrick & Glenn, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action for assault aud battery,- in which the jury found for the defendant. The verdict was against the evidence, and there was error in the.instructions for the defendant. From the first instruction the jury would understand, if the plaintiff advanced upon the defendant in a threatening manner, for the purpose of fighting, and a fight followed, the plaintiff could not recover, even though the defendant had far exceeded the just bounds of self-defense, and inflicted an inhuman beating, provided he desisted as soon as the plaintiff asked him to do so. The rule is, on the contrary, that no more violence can be used than a reasonable man would, under the circumstances, regard necessary to his defense. If *367he strikes a blow not necessary to his defense, or after all danger is past, or by way of revenge, he is guilty of an assault and battery. The third instruction tells the jury, among other things, that the plaintiff, in order to recover, should have been guilty of no provocation. This is error. It is wholly immaterial what language he may have used, so far as the right to maintain an action is concerned, and even if he went beyond words, and committed a technical assault, the acts of the defendant must still be limited to a reasonable self-defense. All the instructions for the defendant are pervaded to a greater or less degree by these errors, and should have been refused. The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# 7th Fleet Aircraft Transits Taiwan Strait

7th Fleet Public Affairs

TAIWAN STRAIT – A U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon transited the Taiwan Strait in international airspace on Feb. 27, 2023 (local time). The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate anywhere international law allows including within the Taiwan Strait. By operating within the Taiwan Strait in accordance with international law, the United States upholds the navigational rights and freedoms of all nations. The aircraft’s transit of the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the United States’ commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
#### Walter Scott Black v. The State.

No. 22685.

Delivered January 19, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*E. T. Miller,*of Amarillo, and *R. A. DeFee,*of Dalhart, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of five years in the penitentiary on a charge of rape.

The prosecuting witness, Mrs. Ruth Eslinger, testified to a states of facts supporting the indictment which charged rape by force, on June 29, 1942.

An abstract view of her story is not impressive. It was. denied, in toto, by appellant. In lieu thereof, he detailed the night out with the prosecuting witness, including their relationship, which he said was by mutual agreement. The jury found *555in favor of the prosecution, but assessed a penalty of only five years in the penitentiary. The State’s evidence, if given full faith and credit by the jury, would have supported the extreme penalty.

The record contains several bills of exception, none of which present a serious question for our consideration. All are directed to objections levelled at the admissibility of testimony. Appellant has presented no brief in the case and the grounds of objections found in the bills fail to direct our attention very pointedly to what he has in mind. We have carefully examined each of these bills in the light of the statement of facts and are impressed that they pertain, in a large measure, to immaterial and unimportant matters that have nothing to do with an issue in the case. There is nothing inflammatory or to any degree harmful shown. It may be said definitely that they do not show error.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### The Holland House Company, Appellant, v. Annie M. Kinsley, as Executrix, etc., of Herbert M. Kinsley, Deceased, and Gustav Baumann, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. (Patterson, P. J., and Ingraham, J., dissenting.)
H. Res. 249

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 16 (legislative day, July 15), 1999.

Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 254) entitled

the ‘‘Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability

and Rehabilitation Act of 1999’’, in the opinion of this

House, contravenes the first clause of the seventh section of

the first article of the Constitution of the United States and

is an infringement of the privileges of this House and that

such bill be respectfully returned to the Senate with a message communicating this resolution.

Attest:

Clerk.
(No. 21380.

#### R. O. Ahlenius, Defendant in Error, *vs.*Bunn & Humphreys, Inc., Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed October 22,*1932.

Stone & Taylor, and B. L. Catron, for plaintiff in error.

W. K. Bracken, and Bracken, Livingston & Murphy, for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court:

In 1928 J. E. Humphreys & Co., a corporation, with its principal office at Bloomington, Illinois, and John W. Bunn & Co., a corporation, with its principal office at Springfield, Illinois, each organized under the laws of this State and each engaged in the wholesale grocery business, merged and consolidated into one corporation known as Bunn & Humphreys, Inc., plaintiff in error. On May 16, 1929, R. O. Ahlenius, defendant in error, who was a stockholder of J. F. Humphreys & Co., filed his petition in the circuit *47court of McLean county asserting therein that as a stockholder of the corporation he objected to the consolidation and requested that the value of his stock should be determined and the same paid to him by the acquiring company. The cause was submitted to the court for trial, and the court found the value of the stock to have been $12,842.72 and entered judgment against Bunn *&*Humphreys for that amount. On appeal from this judgment by Bunn & Humphreys to the Appellate Court for the Third District the judgment of the circuit court was reversed and judgment was entered in the Appellate Court in favor of Ahlenius against Bunn *&*Humphreys for $20,144 and costs. The cause is here on *certiorari.*

The final determination of the case by the Appellate Court was arrived at, in part, on findings of facts concerning the matter in controversy different from the findings of the trial court, but there is no recital of the facts contained in the final order or judgment of the court, as required by section 120 of the Practice act. The Appellate Court not having made such findings, its judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to that court, with directions either to affirm the judgment, or, if there was error in matter of law requiring a reversal and which error can be corrected on another trial, to remand the cause and order that the error be corrected, or if a final judgment is entered finding the facts different from the trial court, the ultimate facts found differently from the facts as found by the circuit court shall be incorporated in the judgment. *Brelie*v. *Klafter,*336 Ill. 175; *Bolle*v. *Chicago and Northwestern Railway Co.*324 id. 479; *Frank*v. *Hoskins Co.*323 id. 46; *Chicago Title and Trust Co.*v. *Ward,*319 id. 201.

*Reversed and remanded, with directions.*
### §2389. Ensuring safety regarding insensitive munitions

The Secretary of Defense shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that insensitive munitions under development or procurement are safe throughout development and fielding when subject to unplanned stimuli.

(Added Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title VIII, §834(a)(1), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1191.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2389, added Pub. L. 89–696, §1(1), Oct. 19, 1966, 80 Stat. 1056; amended Pub. L. 100–370, §1(h)(1), July 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 847, related to purchases from Commodity Credit Corporation and price adjustments for contracts for procurement of milk, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title VIII, §821(a)(4), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1704.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Report Requirement

Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title VIII, §834(b), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1191, directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to committees of Congress a report on insensitive munitions at the same time that the budgets for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 were submitted.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7962

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JEMAL WALTER WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (7:94-cr-00210-HMH; 7:01-cv-03549)

Submitted: February 22, 2007 Decided: March 5, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jemal Walter Williams, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

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

PER CURIAM:

Jemal Walter Williams appeals from the district court's

order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration filed

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Our review of the record

discloses that this appeal is without merit. Williams has not

raised any meritorious issues nor presented any evidence not

previously considered by the district court as to its dismissal of

Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. We therefore

find that the district court's denial of his motion for

reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion. United States v.

Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 203 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s order. 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.

AFFIRMED
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00608-CR

COLE CANYON LOCKHART

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

424th District Court of Llano County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR6612

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 17, 2015
1

Filed 10/28/13 P. v. Leen CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Trinity)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DOVIE DEWDROP LEEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C073535

(Super. Ct. No. 11F0207A)

In November 2011, defendant Dovie Dewdrop Leen threatened to commit a crime 

that would result in death or great bodily injury. He intended that his statement be taken 

as a threat, and the victim feared for his safety or the safety of his family. Because the 

matter was resolved by plea and defendant waived referral to the probation department, 

our statement of facts is taken from the amended information. 

Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422) and admitted two 

prior serious or violent felony convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). 

In exchange, two related counts and several allegations were dismissed. A great bodily 
2

injury allegation was dismissed with a Harvey waiver for restitution. (People v. Harvey

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.)

Defendant was sentenced to prison for a stipulated term of 25 years to life, 

awarded 469 days’ custody credit and 469 days’ conduct credit, and ordered to pay a 

$6,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a $6,000 restitution fine suspended unless 

parole is revoked (Pen. Code, § 1202.45), a $40 court operations fee (Pen. Code, 

§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). 

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, 

and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination 

of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more 

favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 HULL , J.

We concur:

 BLEASE , Acting P. J.

 MURRAY , J.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News

Japan, Republic of Korea, U.S. Navies Conduct Trilateral Maritime ExerciseNovember 29, 2023 — The U.S. Navy’s Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 1 conducted a trilateral maritime exercise with the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) and Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN), Nov. 26... MORE 

----

U.S., Allied Forces Conduct Exercise Pacific Vanguard 2023July 11, 2023 — Maritime forces from Royal Australia Navy (RAN), Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF), Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy, and the U.S. Navy were underway in early July conducting cooperative maritime exercise Pacific Vanguard (PV) 2023.... MORE 

----

7th Fleet Travels to the Republic of Korea for 7th Annual Anti-Submarine Warfare Cooperation Committee MeetingFebruary 3, 2023 — BUSAN, Republic of Korea - Vice Adm. Karl Thomas, commander, U.S. 7th Fleet, visited Commander, Republic of Korea Fleet (CRF) Base in Busan, Republic of Korea (ROK), Feb. 2, to attend the 7th Anti-Submarine Warfare Cooperation Committee (ASWCC) meeting as the co-chair of the event.... MORE 

----

2024 (327)2023 (825)2022 (1193)2021 (1066)2020 (1083)2019 (1166)2018 (1116)2017 (1356)2016 (1475)2015 (1408)2014 (904)2013 (32)2012 (4)

About DoDDoD CareersJoin the MilitaryNewsUSA.govPhotos & VideosPrivacy & SecurityTop Issues

US INDOPACOM Inspector GeneralDoD Inspector General Accessibility/Section 508DoD FOIAUS INDOPACOM FOIALink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActRecovery ActINDOPACOM Webmaster

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - Instagram
                  - RSS

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
### -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/28 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■

■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●