alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfonso Carter, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 750]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered June 1, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.

*1271It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed. Present—Scudder, J.P, Martoche, Centra and Pine, JJ.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

28 November 2006

(2006/C 290/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED: Aprilll, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. FAA-2012-0781 

BRAILLE BATTERY, INC. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2011 SO 700298 

Respondent 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On March 26, 2013, a Notice of Pre-Hearing Status Conference was filed. Among other 

things, this Order set a Pre-Hearing Status Conference for Apri111, 2013. 

On April10, 2013, the Office ofHearings received, via e-mail attachment from FAA 

Counsel, a document titled Withdrawal. of Complaint. The e-mail stated that FAA Counsel had 

received the document from the Respondent along with a signed settlement agreement. Although 

the document is incorrectly titled it clearly demonstrates that the parties have reached a 

settlement, withdraws the Respondent's Request for Hearing, and requests that the proceeding be 

dismissed. The document is signed by the Respondent's Representative. 

After reviewing all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority, and being 

fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Pre-Hearing Status Conference set for April 11, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. is cancelled. 

2. The 3-day hearing currently set to begin on June 25,2013 in Tampa, Florida is cancelled. 

3. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawn his request for hearing, 

and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. · 

Attachment: Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 · 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl 0001 

Mr. Gerald A. Ellis, Esq. 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FPC(: 404-305-5223 

Mr. Blake Fuller, CEO 

Respondent 's Representative 

Braille Battery, Inc., Respondent 

6935 15th Street E, Building 115 

Sarasota, FL 34243 

blake@braillebattery.com 

TEL: 941-312-5047 

Judge J. E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20/Room Ell-310 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202~366-2132 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536 

ONE COPY 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0781 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 

20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

Page 2 of2
§ 213.26 Rate of royalty on casing-head gas. ( a ) On casing-head gas used or sold for the manufacture of casing-head gasoline the minimum rate of royalty shall be 121 ⁄ 2 percent of the value of the casing-head gas, which value shall be determined and computed on the basis and in the manner provided in the applicable operating regulations of the Department.
( b ) In cases where gas produced and sold has a value for drip gasoline, casing-head gasoline content, and as dry gas from which the casing-head gasoline has been extracted, then the royalties above provided shall be paid on all such values.
POTENTIAL NEW PRODUCTS
The following tables are a list of possible new commercial and residential products derived fiom various independent sources.

pewProducts 

## - Commercial 

# 1 l~ommercial Clothes Washers 

# I Commercial Clothes Dryers Commercial Electric Cooking ICommercial Gas Cooking 

### I SupmarketRefrigeration Walk-in Refrigerators Vending Machines IBeverage Merchandisers 

# I JReach-inRefrigerators 

# I lice Machines 

### I Traffic Signals Pedestrian Crossing Signs

l~eneral Service incandescent lamps (Commercial) 

# 4
Gas Unit Heater Oil Unit Heater Gas Duct Furnace Ground-coupled HP Desktop PC

# - Commercial IMonitors 

## - Commercial 

# I IServer Computers 

## - Commercial 

# I /CopyMachines 

## - Commercial 

# I

aser Printers 

## - Commercial AX Machines 

## - Commercial 

# IPOTENTIAL NEW PRODUCTS 

# I"

ew Products 

# - Residential$ Desktop PC 

## - Residential Monitors

## - Residential Copy Machines 

### - Residential 

### Laser Printers

# - ~esidential FAX Machines 

## - Residential Inkjet Printers 

## - Residential Auto Coffee Maker 

### - Residential Cable Box 

# - Residential

I Compact Audio 

## - Residential De-humidifier 

## - Residential

Torchieres (Halogen) VCR 

## - Residential Waterbed Heater 

## - Residential wellPump

# - Residential Window, Stand and Desk Fans 

## - Residential



# . Ceiling:Fans 

# - Residential



### $ NAECA authorizesrulemakings for residential products with averageusage per household of 100 kWyear
### SUBCHAPTER XVI—CONSOLIDATION AND MERGER
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-15-00309-CV

_________________

IN RE DONNA R. SMITH

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-04-03822 CV

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In her petition for a writ of mandamus, Donna R. Smith asks that the Court 

compel the judge of the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas to 

grant Smith’s motion to compel production of documents that she served on the 

real party in interest, The AIM Group, Inc. “The trial court has the discretion to 

deny a request if it is an overly broad discovery request that it determines could 

have been more narrowly tailored to include only relevant matters or should have 

been limited in time and scope.” In re Indeco Sales, Inc. No. 09-14-00405-CV, 

2014 WL 5490943, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Oct. 30, 2014, orig. proceeding) 
2

(mem. op.). After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that 

Relator has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion. We deny the 

petition for a writ of mandamus. 

PETITION DENIED. 

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 19, 2015

Opinion Delivered August 20, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
### §1701z–12. Housing access

The Secretary shall require any purchaser of a multifamily housing project owned by the Secretary which is sold on or after October 1, 1978, to agree not to refuse unreasonably to lease a vacant dwelling unit in the project which rents for an amount not greater than the fair market rent for a comparable unit in the area as determined by the Secretary under section 1437f of title 42 to a holder of a certificate of eligibility under that section solely because of such prospective tenant's status as a certificate holder.

(Pub. L. 95–557, title II, §204, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2090.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978, and not as part of the National Housing Act which comprises this chapter.
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 30, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 40 8

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 60 26 4- CR-J IC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SCOTT A. THO MPS ON, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 30 , 20 10 ) Befo re CARNES, ANDERSON an d S TAHL, Cir cu itJu dg es . * PER CURI AM:
Honora ble Norma

n H. Stahl, United States Circuit J udg e for the Fir st Circuit, sit ting by * designation.Hav in g c on si de redth e b rie fs an d h eardora l ar gu m en t i n thi s ap pe al , we

read il y co nc lu de th atth e co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e are du e to be affi rm ed . The reco rdon ap pe al th atis be fo re u s d oe s n otdi sc lo se th atth e ev id en ce Ap pe ll an t Tho m ps on co nt en ds sh ou ldha ve be ensupp res se d was actua ll y adm it te d a ga in st hi m at t he tri al . The b ur de n i s o n t he ap pe ll an t t o p utbe fo re t hi s C ou rt asu ffi ci en t reco rdto est ab li sh th e p red ic at e fo r hi s co nt en ti on s o n app eal , andTho m ps on ha s no t d on e th at . W e ad d o ne m or e p oi ntab ou t t he tex t m es sa ge s t ha t Th om ps on co nt en ds were b el at ed ly obt ai ne d fr om th e LG cel l p ho ne . Even if we wer e to go be y on d th e rec or d andass um e th atth os e te xtm es sa ge s wer e ad m it te d a t t ria l, an d fu rth er as su m e th atth e p art ie s’ rep res en ta ti on s ab ou t t he ot he r ev id en ce ad m it te d a t t ria l are t ru e, itis cle ar tha t an y erro r in adm it ti ng th e LG cel l p ho ne tex t m es sa ge s was ha rm le ss be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. AFFIR MED.

2
Date: August 31 , 2015 Meet in g: Blue Gr·een A lli ance Meeting Re: Methane Rule(s) Discussed: 

# f'J\e_ -\"'c'-r"\ e_ Written Mater i als? 

# v es@

N am e Orga n ization



# u s c .J Ph o n e N umb e r



### (

_ J__c Q 

# 'U**·** +- \

# ..:........:**./\ '--------1--** **--'-- \?** **____!_ A-** **____:___** __ -----.!::....._ 'J_o l.

# ~ 3

# ~ 3.:.. 

# 4 (:; & 

### tJ( 

# ; l l t? \ d :> c, 

# LJ.e ,· 1D 2
- J '"1 '3 

### -c i**~q** 

### 7**'Z t--** **5~<-( -y~**  

# 'ke

. - -
### §8467. Degree on graduation

Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, the Superintendent of the Naval Academy may confer the degree of bachelor of science upon graduates of the Academy.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 434, §6967; renumbered §8467, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(c)(1), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6967 | 34 U.S.C. 1057a (less last sentence). | May 25, 1933, ch. 37, 48 Stat. 73 (less last sentence); Aug. 9, 1946, ch. 932, 60 Stat. 968; Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, §13, 63 Stat. 559; Aug. 18, 1949, ch. 476, 63 Stat. 614. |

The word "regulations" is substituted for the words "such rules and regulations". Since the Naval Academy is now accredited, the words "from and after the date of accrediting of said Academy" are omitted as executed.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6967 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.

#### Degrees for Persons Who Graduated Before Accrediting of Naval Academy

Act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §35, 70A Stat. 634, provided in part that, under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, the Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy "may confer the degree of bachelor of science upon living graduates of [the] Academy who were graduated before the date of accrediting of [the] Academy and who have met the requirements of [the] Academy for that degree."
# C_2006326EN.01004902.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/49

---

Action brought on 24 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-485/06)

(2006/C 326/101)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou and W. Bogensberger, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (1), or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2002/90/EC of 28 November 2002 defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (1), or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the Directive expired on 5 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 328, p. 17.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40741 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus AQUILEO AYALA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-2469-ALL

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Aquileo Ayala-Flores appeals from his guilty plea convictionand sentence for illegal reentry of a deported alien. AyalaFlores argues that the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by characterizing his state felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Ayala-Flores’s argument is unavailing in light of circuit precedent. See United States v. Hinojosa-Lopez , 130 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1997).No. 05-40741 -2- Ayala-Flores also argues that this circuit’s precedent is inconsistent with Jerome v. United States , 318 U.S. 101 (1943). Having preceded Hinojosa-Lopez , Jerome is not “an intervening Supreme Court case explicitly or implicitly overruling that prior precedent.” See United States v. Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999). Ayala-Flores also challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Ayala-Flores contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.
See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Ayala-Flores properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here solely to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 662 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 30, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 121) making further continuing appropriations for the 
fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 122) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2001, 
and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for 
amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 123) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered as read 
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
    Sec. 4. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without 
intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint resolution 
(H.J. Res. 124) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 
2001, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered as read 
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
H. Res. 560

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 20, 2000.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4871) making appropriations for the Treasury

Department, the United States Postal Service, the Executive

Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies,

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other

purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

All points of order against consideration of the bill are

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall

not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of

order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with

clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 62,

line 17, through page 63, line 2. During the consideration of
2

•HRES 560 EH

the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of

the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of

whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to

be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time

during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole

a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting

on any postponed question that follows another electronic

vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum

time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration

of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAugmenting the SCaN Link Budget Tool with Validated Atmospheric PropagationIn any Earth-Space or Space-Earth communications link, atmospheric effects cause significant signal attenuation. In order to develop a communications system that is cost effective while meeting appropriate performance requirements, it is important to accurately predict these effects for the given link parameters. This project aimed to develop a Matlab(TradeMark) (The MathWorks, Inc.) program that could augment the existing Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Link Budget Tool with accurate predictions of atmospheric attenuation of both optical and radio-frequency signals according to the SCaN Optical Link Assessment Model Version 5 and the International Telecommunications Union, Radiocommunications Sector (ITU-R) atmospheric propagation loss model, respectively. When compared to data collected from the Advance Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS), the radio-frequency model predicted attenuation to within 1.3 dB of loss for 95 of measurements. Ultimately, this tool will be integrated into the SCaN Center for Engineering, Networks, Integration, and Communications (SCENIC) user interface in order to support analysis of existing SCaN systems and planning capabilities for future NASA missions.Document ID20170010174Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSteinkerchner, Leo*(Ohio State Univ. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Welch, Bryan*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 18, 2017Publication DateOctober 1, 2017Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN46044NASA/TM-2017-219563E-19412Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 439432.07.01.03.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsradio frequency communicationoptical communicationatmospheric attenuationAvailable DownloadsNameType20170010174.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024