alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carl E. COOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack A. HANBERRY, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 78-2538

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 29, 1979.

Opinion Revised June 6, 1979.

See 596 F.2d 658.

*249Carl E. Cook, pro se.

William A. Harper, U. S. Atty., Barbara A. Harris, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, FAY and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc.*v. *Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

A federal prisoner currently serving sentences for bank robbery and assaulting a fellow inmate with a deadly weapon, Cook filed a *pro se*petition, styled under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeking release or return from the Atlanta Prison where he was then incarcerated to a facility on the West Coast where he had previously been confined.

The general rule in federal cases requires that an actual controversy exist at all stages of appellate review, “and not simply at the date the action is initiated.” *Roe v. Wade,*1972, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 712, 35 L.Ed.2d 147. Insofar as Cook’s petitions sought relief in the form of a transfer back to a West Coast facility, the issue has become moot. *See McRae v. Hogan,*5 Cir. 1978, 576 F.2d 615, 616-17.

The prisoner asserts the additional claim, not moot, that he is entitled to release because the treatment accorded him by the prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment.

Assuming *arguendo*that his allegations of mistreatment demonstrate cruel and unusual punishment, the petitioner is still not entitled to release from prison. Habeas corpus is not available to prisoners complaining only of mistreatment during their legal incarceration. *Granville v. Hunt,*5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 9, 12-13; see *also, Williams v. Steele,*8 Cir. 1952, 194 F.2d 917, *cert. denied,*344 U.S. 822, 73 S.Ct. 20, 97 L.Ed. 640. The relief from such unconstitutional practices, *if*proved, is in the form of equitably-imposed restraint, not freedom from otherwise lawful incarceration. *See Konigsberg v. Ciccone,*W.D.Mo. 1968, 285 F.Supp. 585, 589, *aff’d,*8 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 151, *cert. denied,*397 U.S. 963, 90 S.Ct. 996, 25 L.Ed.2d 255 (1970). This is because the sole function of habeas corpus is to provide relief from *unlawful*imprisonment or custody, and it cannot be used for any other purpose. *See Rheuark v. Shaw,*5 Cir. 1977, 547 F.2d 1257, 1259; *Hill v. Johnson,*5 Cir. 1976, 539 F.2d 439, 440; *Pierre v. U. S.,*5 Cir. 1976, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36.

The petitioner’s attack on the transfer to Atlanta lacks merit, *Beck v. Wilkes,*5 Cir. 1979, 589 F.2d 901, 903-04 (1979), and the Eighth Amendment allegations do not entitle him to release from custody. *See Granville v. Hunt,*5 Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 9, 12-13, *Konigsberg v. Ciccone,*W.D.Mo.1968, 285 F.Supp. 585, 589, *aff’d.*3 Cir. 1969, 417 F.2d 161, *cert. denied,*397 U.S. 963, 90 S.Ct. 996, 25 L.Ed.2d 255 (1970).

For these reasons, the dismissal of the petition is AFFIRMED.
# Fertilizer Grant Increases Access for Growers in Rural Montana

Copied to clipboard

02.28.2024

Farmer’s Union Oil Company of Circle and Terry is a farm and ranch supply cooperative that started in 1930. It serves member owners with products such as fuel, propane, fertilizer, and tires.

In early 2023, Farmer’s Union Oil finished construction on a new, larger-capacity fertilizer plant in Circle, Montana, replacing one that had been in operation for more than a half-century.  

“Our intent was to increase the availability of fertilizer in the area,” said general manager Frank Kasten. “When growers need something, they need it now – and we needed to make sure we had the right equipment to meet that demand.”

But a larger plant also brings with it a larger inventory necessary to fill the massive bins inside – nearly three times more fertilizer than the old plant. While increased capacity means more fertilizer is available to local growers, it also requires capital to purchase the raw materials to aggregate. 

So, the team at Farmer’s Union Oil collaborated with the Great Northern Development Corporation (GNDC) in Wolf Point on multiple funding sources, including a USDA Rural Development Fertilizer Production Expansion Program (FPEP) grant. This project was designed to provide affordable, locally available custom-formulated fertilizer products for growers in a five-county region of eastern Montana.  

Their efforts paid off when, last year, Farmer’s Union Oil received a $3.3 million FPEP grant – one of just seven awarded nationwide as part of the initial round of funding. 

“The grant was one of the greatest things to happen to the co-op since it began in the 1930’s,” said Frank. “It was important for our co-op because it kept us solvent. It’s nice to have security for the company and the community.”

The FPEP grant helps keep operating costs down, allowing the co-op to pass along those savings to member growers, providing a more predictable, stable pricing model and allowing them to budget more accurately. It also paid for equipment to help improve the efficiency and safety of operations and allowed them to keep enough fertilizer on hand to meet demand.  

“The plant creates competitive pricing which has allowed me to shop around for fertilizer and get a better deal,” said Leonard Schock, a local McCone County farmer. “When you can shave $20, $30, $50 per ton off the price, that money comes to our pocket and can be spent on other things.”

The FPEP grant also has infused money into the local and regional economy, supporting area financial institutions, retailers, and contractors. 

“It impacts not only those who work at the fertilizer plant,” said Quincy Walter, GNDC’s small business regional director. “It really has a trickle-down effect of how one staple in the community can rise up and bring the rest of the community with them.”

Obligation Amount: 

Year(s) of Obligation: 
2023

Congressional District: 

## Related Story

Browse All Stories →

### Rural Co-op Shines a Light on the Benefits of Solar Energy

[Read More]

06.03.2021

CooperativesRenewable EnergySolar Energy
# C_2013046EN.01002602.xml

| 16.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/26

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Mata Blanco v Commission

(Case F-65/10) (1)

1

(Civil service - Internal competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 - Combating fraud - Respective competences of EPSO and the selection board - Admission tests supervised by the selection board - Oral test - Infringement of the notice of competition - Difference between marks - Evaluation criteria - Equal treatment of candidates - Manifest error of assessment - Principles of transparency and of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons)

2013/C 46/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mata Blanco (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Eggers and P. Pecho, acting as Agents, then B. Eggers, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil service — Application for annulment of the EPSO decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for internal competition ‘COM/INT/OLAF.09/AD10 — Administrators specialised in anti-fraud’ and the reserve list and all the decisions taken on the basis of that list

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mata Blanco to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mata Blanco to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 73.

1

---
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 518323 

________________________________

In the Matter of LEMUEL SMITH,

Petitioner,

v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting

Commissioner of Corrections

and Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: February 24, 2015

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________

Karen L. Murtagh, Prisoners' Legal Services of New York,

Albany (Rosa Cohen-Cruz of counsel), for petitioner.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H.

Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent which found petitioner

guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating three

prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this

Court that the determination at issue has now been

administratively reversed, all references thereto have been

expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the $5

mandatory surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate

account. In view of this, and given that petitioner has received

all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter must be
-2- 518323 

dismissed as moot (see Matter of Ramos v Department of Corr. &

Community Supervision, 123 AD3d 1215, 1216 [2014]).

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
### §2615. Contracts and liens; validity

Nothing in this chapter shall affect the validity or enforceability of any sale or contract for the sale of real property or any loan, loan agreement, mortgage, or lien made or arising in connection with a federally related mortgage loan.

(Pub. L. 93–533, §17, Dec. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 1731.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Dec. 22, 1974, see section 20 of Pub. L. 93–533, set out as a note under section 2601 of this title.
§ 317.10 Reuse of official inspection marks; reuse of containers bearing official marks, labels, etc. ( a ) No official inspection legend or other official mark which has been previously used shall be used again for the identification of any product, except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) All stencils, marks, labels, or other labeling on previously used containers, whether relating to any product or otherwise, shall be removed or obliterated before such containers are used for any product, unless such labeling correctly indicates the product to be packed therein and such containers are refilled under the supervision of a Program employee.
#### § 514.1 What is the purpose of this part?

Each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission, including a gaming operation operated by a tribe with a certificate of self-regulation, shall pay to the Commission annual fees as established by the Commission. The Commission, by a vote of not less than two of its members, shall adopt the rates of fees to be paid.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 628 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 12, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4386) to amend title XIX of the Social 
Security Act to provide medical assistance for certain women screened and found 
to have breast or cervical cancer under a federally funded screening program, to 
amend the Public Health Service Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with respect to surveillance and information concerning the relationship between 
cervical cancer and the human papillomavirus (HPV), and for other purposes, with 
the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention 
of any point of order, a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The 
Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
intervening motion.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
### §931. Oaths required for boards

The members of a retiring board, selection board, examining board, and any other board authorized to be assembled pursuant to this title shall be sworn to discharge their duties honestly and impartially, the oath to be administered to the members by the President or other presiding officer of the board, and to him by the junior member or recorder.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 545, §635; renumbered §931, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §107(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4205.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 14, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §170 (Apr. 12, 1902, ch. 501, §5, 32 Stat. 100).

Said section has been divided. That part relating to oaths is covered in this section. The remainder is covered in section 425 of this title.

Said section is enlarged to include the oaths required for all boards, rather than to cover retiring boards only. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 635 of this title as this section.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**GRUPO TELEVISA, S.A.B. SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Emilio Azcárraga Jean, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Grupo Televisa, S.A.B. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.                                      The Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: April 28, 2017

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Emilio   Azcárraga Jean |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:                            | Emilio Azcárraga   Jean |
|   |   | Title:                           | Chairman of the   Board, President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2007092EN.01000202.xml

| 27.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4584 — Karstadtquelle/Thomas Cook)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 92/04)

On 26 March 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
§ 317.302 Location of nutrition information. ( a ) Nutrition information on a label of a packaged meat or meat food product shall appear on the label's principal display panel or on the information panel, except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) Nutrition information for gift packs may be shown at a location other than on the product label, provided that the labels for these products bear no nutrition claim. In lieu of on the product label, nutrition information may be provided by alternate means such as product label inserts.
( c ) Meat or meat food products in packages that have a total surface area available to bear labeling greater than 40 square inches but whose principal display panel and information panel do not provide sufficient space to accommodate all required information may use any alternate panel that can be readily seen by consumers for the nutrition information. In determining the sufficiency of available space for the nutrition information, the space needed for vignettes, designs, and other nonmandatory label information on the principal display panel may be considered.
[58 FR 664, Jan. 6, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 40213, Aug. 8, 1994; 60 FR 176, Jan. 3, 1995]
•JIM WEBB WASHINGTON OFFICE; 

VIRGIWA WASH(Nf,TON, DC 20510 

(202) 221-*D24 

COMMITTEE ON 

ARMED SERVICES lanitcd States Senate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE AugUSt 20 , 201 0 

COMMITTEE ON 

...QhErCN RELATIONS WASHING TON, DC 20510-4605 

COMMITTEE ON 

VETERANS' AFFAIRS 

fl'-.OtiJ^ 

Ms. Heideh Shalimoradi "* ~^-H^S 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs f^ ^§S " 

U.S. Department of Transportation -j^ ^5;^^ : 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE ' ^O O 

Washington, DC 20590 "^ 2:^" ^ 

Dear Ms. Shalimoradi: 

1 am vvrilijig lo express my support for an application submitted to the U.S. Depailmenl 

of Transportation's (DOT) Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) by 

the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority (CHO). 

It is my understanding that resources provided through the SCASDP would be used to 

help CHO improve the quality of service and airfares. Further, representatives from CHO have 

indicated to my office that funding through the SCASDP would be used to pursue new non-slop 

service from Charlotlesville to Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD). 

It appears that the Charlottesviiie-Albemarie Airport Authority is well-positioned to meet 

the goals of the Small Community Air Service Development Prograni and, lo that end. 1 ask that 

you give this application every fair and favorable consideration in keeping with established 

federal laws and guidelines governing your program. I further ask that you keep me informed of 

the status of this proposal by contacting Mr. Conaway Haskins in my Richmond office at 507 

East Franklin Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. Mr. Haskins may also be reached via telephone 

at (804) 771-8310. 

With warm regards, 1 am 

Webb 

ted States Senator 

JW: mm
### §914. Disposition of infrastructure related to E–LORAN

(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commandant may dismantle or dispose of any real or personal property under the administrative control of the Coast Guard and used for the LORAN–C system.

(b) Restriction.—No action described in subsection (a) may be taken unless and until—

(1) the Commandant notifies the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Defense in writing of the proposed dismantling or disposal of a LORAN–C system; and

(2) a period of 90 calendar days expires following the day on which the notice has been submitted.

(c) Receipt of Notification.—If, not later than 90 calendar days of receipt of the written notification under subsection (b), the Secretary of Transportation or the Secretary of Defense notifies the Commandant, in writing, of a determination under section 312(d) of title 49 that the property is required to provide a positioning, navigation, and timing system to provide redundant capability in the event the Global Positioning System signals are disrupted, the Commandant shall transfer the property to the Department of Transportation without any consideration.

(d) Notification Expiration.—If, at the end of the 90 calendar day period no notification under subsection (b) has been received, the Commandant shall notify the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate that the period in subsection (b)(2) has expired, and may proceed with the dismantling and disposal of the personal property, and disposing of the real property in accordance with section 2945 of this title.

(e) Exception.—The prohibition on actions in subsection (b) does not apply to actions necessary for the safety of human life.

(Added Pub. L. 114–120, title VI, §610(a)(1), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 83, §681; renumbered §914, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §107(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4205; amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXII [LXXXII], §8216, Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4653; Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXII, §11211, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4012.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–263 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to disposition of infrastructure related to E–LORAN and comprised of subsecs. (a) to (c).

2021—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–283, §8216(1), substituted "later of the date of the conveyance of the properties directed under section 533(a) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2016 (Public Law 114–120) or the date" for "date".

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 116–283, §8216(2), added par. (2) and struck out former par. (2) which related to availability of proceeds.

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 681 of this title, relating to disposition of infrastructure related to E–LORAN, as this section.
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantica, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Alan D. Gordon, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Shelley Goff, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:May 17, 2010By:/s/Alan D. GordonAlan D. Gordon, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  Date:May 17, 2010By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer