alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132137 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132137 

 COA: 268197 

Wayne CC: 00-002545-01

ARNOLD L. KIRKSEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 2, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

p1120 

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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0 666 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. DANIEL ALLEN DIETZ ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including June 17 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 17 2024

05/17/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0666
#### § 2.403 May I appeal the decision whether to require an appeal bond?

No. The reviewing official's decision whether to require an appeal bond is not appealable.
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

# Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III on Australia's Defence Strategic Review

DoD Immediate Release

WASHINGTON -- We welcome the release of Australia's Defence Strategic Review (DSR) — it is the latest example of the pivotal role Australia plays in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific, including through participation in AUKUS and the Quad. The DSR demonstrates Australia's commitment to being at the forefront of incorporating new capabilities for the Australian Defence Force to better enable Australia to meet regional and global challenges, as well as to our Unbreakable Alliance, which has never been stronger. The DSR and the U.S. National Defense Strategy are strongly aligned, with a shared vision for maintaining a stable and open international system, rooted in our enduring alliance and our collaboration with other likeminded allies and partners. We welcome Australia's intent to build upon the DSR with an inaugural National Defence Strategy in 2024.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
##### 



Exhibit 32.0
 CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
with Respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the Period Ended March 31, 2006
  1.
    
    The Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, (the Form
10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act); and2.
    
    Information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 10, 2006
    
    /s/ Thomas S. WuThomas S. WuChairman, President andChief Executive OfficerDate: May 10, 2006
    
    /s/ Dennis WuDennis WuDirector, Executive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
  -58-
### §7482. Operation

In maintaining schools and camps established under section 7481 of this title, the Secretary of the Army may—

(1) prescribe the periods during which they will be operated;

(2) prescribe regulations for their administration;

(3) prescribe the courses to be taught;

(4) detail members of the Regular Army to designated duties relating to the camps;

(5) use necessary supplies and transportation;

(6) furnish uniforms, subsistence, and medical attendance and supplies to persons attending the camps; and

(7) authorize necessary expenditures from proper Army funds for—

(A) water;

(B) fuel;

(C) light;

(D) temporary structures, except barracks and officers' quarters;

(E) screening;

(F) damages resulting from field exercises;

(G) expenses incident to theoretical winter instruction of trainees; and

(H) other expenses incident to maintaining the camps.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 249, §4412; renumbered §7482 and amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §§808(c)(2), 809(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1839, 1840.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4412 | 10:442 (47 words after 1st semicolon, and 72 words before 3d semicolon, of 1st sentence; and last sentence). | June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §47d (47 words after 1st semicolon, and 72 words before 3d semicolon, of 1st sentence; and last sentence); added June 4, 1920, ch. 227, subch. I, §34 (47 words after 1st semicolon, and 72 words before 3d semicolon, of 1st sentence; and last sentence of last par.), 41 Stat. 779. |

The word "supplies" is substituted for the words "such arms, ammunition, accoutrements, equipments, tentage, field equipage", since, under the definition of the word "supplies", in section 101(26) of this title, those words are covered by the word "supplies". The words "belonging to the United States", "and imparting military instruction and training thereat", "during the period of their attendance", "theoretical and practical instruction", "persons attending the camps authorized by this section", and "as he may deem" are omitted as surplusage. The word "detail" is substituted for the word "employ". The word "members" is substituted for the words "officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232, §809(a), substituted "section 7481" for "section 4411" in introductory provisions.

Pub. L. 115–232, §808(c)(2), renumbered section 4412 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
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		 

Home : Media : Speeches / Testimony

# Reversing America’s Eroding Military Edge in the Pacific: A Conversation with INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Philip S. Davidson

By ADM Phil DavidsonU.S. Indo-Pacific Command

**                                                            Reversing America’s Eroding Military Edge in the Pacific:**

**                                                 A Conversation with INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Philip S. Davidson**                                                                                        **Date: October 13, 2020**Hosted by FDD’s Center on Military and Political Power and FDD’s China Program, Reversing America’s Eroding Military Edge in the Pacific features a discussion with INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Phil Davidson to discuss why and how the United States must strengthen efforts in the Indo-Pacific to protect American interests and deter aggression from Beijing.**Click here to view Video:  **

 

 

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More Speeches/Testimony
Order entered May 20, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01513

- CV

REBECCA POTTER, INDI VIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF AUSTYN VASQUEZ, A MINOR, AN D RICHARD POTTE R, Appellant

V.

HP TEXAS 1 LLC D/B/A HPA TX LLC, ET AL., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court

Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1

- 18

- 1376



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellee Coats Group Real Estate Co. d/b/a CGC Constru ction’s May

16, 2019 second motion for extension of time to file brief tendered

. We GRANT the motion and

ORDER the brief received May 16, 2019 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
## CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 1 I. GENERAL
District: Monterey Bay Unified APCD Date Adopted: 4/20/05
Rule No: Rule 901 Regulation Title: Public Records - Definitions
Date Submitted To ARB: 2/23/05 Date Last Amended or Revised: 3/8/84 Pollutants Regulated By This Rule (Check):
NOx SO2 PM10 VOC

_ TAC (Name of TAC)
Is this rule intended to be sent to the EPA as a SIP revision ? X Yes No.
SUMMARY OF RULE CHANGES: New rule ? Amended rule Rule Repealed.

II. NET EFFECT ON EMISSIONS Increase Decrease X No change N/A Emissions reduction commitment in SIP for this source category: 0.0 tons/year SCC/CES Code(s) Affected: na Affected SIC Code(s): na Inventory Year to Calculate Changes in Emissions: na Affected Area:
Future Year Control Profile Estimate ( VOC emissions): N/A
Tons/Year Baseline Reductions Tons/year Control Percent Control Control Year (increases) Subject to Rule Level Control Level Factor

N/A / = * 100 = % 1.00 - =

/ = * 100 = % 1.00 - = / = * 100 = % 1.00 - =

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS District is: Attainment Nonattainment X Split Approximate number of minor (<100 TPY) sources controlled by rule: na

. Percent in nonattainment area: na

. Number of major ( ? 100 TPY) sources controlled: NONE . Percent in nonattainment area: 0%

## CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM

Page - 2 Location of Major Sources by City: N/A

IV. EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY N/A
Does rule include emission limits that are continuous? Yes; X No. If yes, those limits are in Section(s) N/A of the rule. Other methods in the rule for achieving emissions reductions are:

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS The rule contains: 1) Emission limits in Section(s) N/A

. 2) Work practice standards in Section(s) na

. 3) Record keeping requirements in Section(s) na

. 4) Reporting requirements in Section(s) na

.

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN X No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts Attainment
DISCUSSION:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

TIMOTHY LEE HOWARD, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 18-8086 

(D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00051-SWS-3) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, KELLY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Timothy Lee Howard pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully distributing 

methamphetamine. He was sentenced to serve 100 months in prison after the district 

court varied downward from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 151 to 188 

months. Although his plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights, he 

filed a notice of appeal. In his docketing statement, he indicated he wants to 

challenge his sentence on appeal. The government has moved to enforce the appeal 

waiver in the plea agreement pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 

(10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 7, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Under Hahn, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the

scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would 

result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. The government asserts that all of the 

Hahn conditions have been satisfied because: (1) Mr. Howard’s appeal is within the 

scope of the appeal waiver; (2) he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate 

rights; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. 

Mr. Howard responds to the government’s motion as follows: “Appellant 

Timothy Lee Howard, through undersigned counsel, takes no position on the United 

States’ Motion to Enforce Appeal Waiver filed by the United States of America in 

this appeal.” Resp. at 1. We do not consider this an objection to the motion, and the 

reasoning in the government’s motion is sound. Accordingly, we grant the 

government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
###### Editorial Note on Part 224

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

#### § 224.153 Must the Secretary notify the Tribe of an intent to reassume the authority granted?

If the Secretary determines under § 224.152 that reassumption is necessary to protect the physical trust asset, the Secretary will issue a written notice to the Tribal governing body of the Secretary's intent to reassume.
ATTACHMENT B – Part II, Section A, 2. 

SANITIZED 

Page 1 

PART II, SECTION A, QUESTION (2)

A.(2) 

Identified below are the points during and after manufacturing where a person, at the manufacturing site, 

may be exposed to the PMN substance.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7656
In Re: ROBERT CALVIN CRAIG, JR., Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis. (CA-95-182) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Calvin Craig, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Calvin Craig, a North Carolina inmate, petitions for a writ of error coram nobis in an effort to obtain relief from a prefiling injunction and fine imposed because of his repeatedly filing frivolous actions. Coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy to be used to remedy the most fundamental errors in a conviction after a sentence has been served. See United States v. Mandel , 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988). Craig’s petition does not satisfy these criteria, and we therefore deny the petition. We deny the motions to proceed in forma pauperis, to expedite, and to strike, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the court, and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
United States Steel Corporation – Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request

April 24, 2012

Item 3

For the time period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011, provide records of the

natural gas used by each specific indurating furnace at the facility.

Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or 

were consulted in the preparation of the response: 

Teresa Simetkosky

Answer:

Year Line 3 Line 4 Line 5 Line 6 Line 7

2007 562,346 1,272,785 1,157,004 881,626 963,958

2008 1,173,945 1,383,047 1,242,028 996,588 951,371

2009 260,663 767,903 767,583 565,140 997,330

2010 898,673 883,870 1,069,473 1,113,938 1,393,496

2011 1,195,476 995,059 1,331,812 1,319,563 1,455,057

*Natural gas usage is in MCF
#### § 217.1 Definitions.

As used in this part:

*Assets* means all unadjudicated or unliquidated claims against the United States, all gas, oil, and mineral rights of every kind, and all other assets of the Ute Tribe of Uintah and Ouray Reservation as constituted on August 27, 1954, not distributed in accordance with the terms of the Ute Partition Act.

*Business Committee* means the Uintah and Ouray Tribal Business Committee, created pursuant to the provisions of the constitution and bylaws of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.

*Board of directors* means the board of directors of the Ute Distribution Corp., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Utah.

*Joint manager* or *joint managers* means the business committee and the board of directors, or either of them, as is appropriate, within the context where one of those terms is used.

*Superintendent* means the superintendent of the Uintah and Ouray Agency, Bureau of Indian Affairs.

*Secretary* means the secretary of the Interior or a subordinate official acting pursuant to authority delegated by said Secretary.
§ 166.607 Is insurance required for a permit? When we determine it to be in the best interest of the Indian landowners, we will require a permittee to provide insurance. If insurance is required, it must: ( a ) Be provided in an amount sufficient to: ( 1 ) Protect any improvements on the permit premises;
( 2 ) Cover losses such as personal injury or death; and
( 3 ) Protect the interest of the Indian landowner.
( b ) Identify the tribe, individual Indian landowners, and United States as insured parties.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Budget justifications andperformance information : Bureau of Land Management**
 
2004 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011| 2012 | 2013 | 2014| 2015 | 2016 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:I 53.1/9:
Item Number:0631-H-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001019162
 
December 18, 2017
# C_2013358EN.01000201.xml

| 7.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 358/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 358/2

---

Communication from the Commission concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2014 under certain quotas opened by the European Union for poultrymeat products

2013/C 358/03

Commission Regulation (EC) No 616/2007 (1) opened tariff quotas for imports of products in the poultrymeat sector. The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of October 2013 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2014 are, for quotas 09.4212, 09.4217, 09.4218 and 09.4256, for quantities smaller than those available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (2), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 April to 30 June 2014; they are set out in the Annex to this communication.

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 142, 5.6.2007, p. 3.

1

(2)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

---

ANNEX

| Quota order number | Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2014
  (in kg) |
| --- | --- |
| 09.4212 | 44 864 920 |
| 09.4217 | 12 369 400 |
| 09.4218 | 9 276 800 |
| 09.4256 | 3 245 004 |

Quota order number

Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2014

(in kg)

09.4212

44 864 920

09.4217

12 369 400

09.4218

9 276 800

09.4256

3 245 004

---
§ 162.577 How will BIA decide whether to approve an assignment of a WSR lease? ( a ) We may disapprove an assignment of a WSR lease only if at least one of the following is true: ( 1 ) The Indian landowners have not consented and their consent is required;
( 2 ) The lessee's mortgagees or sureties have not consented;
( 3 ) The lessee is in violation of the lease;
( 4 ) The assignee does not agree to be bound by the terms of the lease;
( 5 ) The requirements of this subpart have not been met; or
( 6 ) We find a compelling reason to withhold our approval in order to protect the best interests of the Indian landowners.
( b ) In making the finding required by paragraph (a)(6) of this section, we may consider whether: ( 1 ) The value of any part of the leased premises not covered by the assignment would be adversely affected; and
( 2 ) If a performance bond is required, the assignee has posted the bond or security and provided supporting documents that demonstrate that: ( i ) The lease will be enforceable against the assignee; and
( ii ) The assignee will be able to perform its obligations under the lease or assignment.
( c ) We will defer, to the maximum extent possible, to the Indian landowners' determination that the assignment is in their best interest.
( d ) We may not unreasonably withhold approval of an assignment.