alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Tony Pankey, appellant.

303 N.W.2d 305

Filed March 20, 1981.

No. 43597.

Bruce G. Mason of Ross & Mason for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Terry R. Schaaf for appellee.

Heard before Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, Clinton, Brodkey, White, and Hastings, JJ.

Krivosha, C.J.

The appellant, Tony Pankey (Pankey), appeals from an order entered by the District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, denying Pankey’s request for post conviction relief. We affirm.

This is the second appearance for this case. Originally this case was before us by reason of Pankey appealing his having been convicted by a jury of three counts of first degree sexual assault and one count of kidnapping. For the specific details of the case, see *State v. Pankey,*202 Neb. 595, 276 N.W.2d 233 (1979).

Pankey now maintains that he is entitled to post conviction relief due to inadequate counsel. In particular, he maintains that his trial counsel inadequately represented him in that the trial counsel failed *378to take the deposition of the two prosecutrixes prior to trial. The difficulty with the argument is that Pankey does not provide us with any evidence as to what the prosecutrixes would have testified to had their depositions been taken that would, in any manner, have been of benefit to Pankey and would have established how or in what manner he was denied adequate counsel. We have previously held that error or prejudice allegedly resulting from the ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be established where witnesses were not called, absent a showing in the record of the beneficial nature of such witnesses’ testimony. See *State v. Holtan,*205 Neb. 314, 287 N.W.2d 671 (1980). In a post conviction proceeding the burden of proof is on the movant to establish a basis for relief, and where such burden is not met a denial of that requested relief is required. *State v. Auger & Uitts,*200 Neb. 53, 262 N.W.2d 187 (1978); *State v. Bartlett,*199 Neb. 471, 259 N.W.2d 917 (1977). Where one maintains that counsel was inadequate, one must show how or in what manner the alleged inadequacy prejudiced him. *State v. Colgrove,*207 Neb. 496, 299 N.W.2d 753 (1980); *State v. Harlan,*205 Neb. 676, 289 N.W.2d 531 (1980). The record in this case discloses that there was more than sufficient evidence upon which the jury could determine, as it did, that the attacks were without consent and in violation of law. Absent any showing by Pankey as to what the testimony of the prosecutrixes would have been had their depositions been taken and how that testimony would have affected the outcome of the trial or established that Pankey was inadequately represented, he has simply failed to meet his burden. The judgment of the trial court must, therefore, be affirmed.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# AGENCY:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of Public Availability of FY 2010 Service Contract Inventories.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), Commodity Futures Trading Commission is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2010 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2010. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at:                         *http://www.whitehouse.gov/​sites/​default/​files/​omb/​procurement/​memo/​service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.*                         Commodity Futures Trading Commission has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the CFTC homepage at the following link:                         *http://www.cftc.gov/​ucm/​groups/​public/​@aboutcftc/​documents/​file/​cftcserviceinventory_​2010.pdf.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Sonda R. Owens in the Office of Financial Management, Procurement at 202-418-5182 or                         *sowens@cftc.gov.*

David A. Stawick,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2011-4850 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
### §2110. Number of officers to be selected for promotion

Before convening a board under section 2106 of this title to recommend officers for promotion to any grade, the Secretary shall determine the total number of officers to be selected for promotion to that grade. This number shall be equal to the number of vacancies existing in the grade, plus the number of additional vacancies estimated for the next twelve months, less the number of officers on the selection list for the grade.

(Added Pub. L. 88–130, §1(10)(C), Sept. 24, 1963, 77 Stat. 179, §255; renumbered §2110 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§112(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4216, 4240.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §123(b)(2), substituted "section 2106" for "section 251".

Pub. L. 115–282, §112(b), renumbered section 255 of this title as this section.
October 23, 2015

Ruben Balter

3631 Monterosa Drive

Altadena, CA 91001

Dear Mr. Balter:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your June 22, 2015 exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA-2015-3343, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
# C_2006326EN.01002601.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 October 2006 — Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn

(Case C-414/06)

(2006/C 326/52)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanzamt Heilbronn

Defendant:

Question referred

Is it compatible with Articles 43 EC and 56 EC for a German company with income from industrial or commercial activities to be precluded, when calculating its profits, from deducting losses from a permanent establishment in another Member State (here: Luxembourg) on the ground that, according to the applicable double taxation convention, the corresponding income from such a permanent establishment is not subject to taxation in Germany?

---
#### § 15.11 Notice.

The Department shall make available to all Department employees and interested persons information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the Department, and make such information available to them in such a manner as is necessary to apprise them of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and this part.
COPEPOD Coastal and Oceanic Plankton Ecology, Production, and Observation Database
### §2745. Replacement of medals

In those cases where a medal, or a bar, emblem, or insignia in lieu thereof, awarded pursuant to this chapter has been stolen, lost, destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault or neglect on the part of the individual to whom it was awarded, such medal, or bar, emblem, or insignia in lieu thereof, shall be replaced without charge, or, in the discretion of the Secretary, upon condition that the Government is reimbursed for the cost thereof.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 537, §501; Pub. L. 107–107, div. A, title V, §553(d)(2), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1117; renumbered §2745, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4226; Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8505(a)(37), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4749.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

This section provides for the replacement of medals. It follows the established practice of the other armed forces, but makes an additional provision that the Secretary in his discretion may charge for the replacement medals in some circumstances. (See title 10, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §1416 and title 34, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §359.) 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "individual" for "person".

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 501 of this title as this section.

2001—Pub. L. 107–107 inserted "stolen," before "lost,".
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Revised Indexes of Factory Employment and Pay Rolls, 1919 to 1933

              																	Olenin, Alice					,	Talbert, Lewis Emerson					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Revised Indexes of Factory Employment and Pay Rolls, 1919 to 1933 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 610*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. G.P.O., 										February 1935,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4132,			accessed on September 19, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4918]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--ASTM International Standards

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 4, 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''), ASTM International 
Standards (``ASTM'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
additions or changes to its standards development activities. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided 
an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities 
originating between December 2010 and February 2011 designated as Work 
Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief 
description of each, is available at http://www.astm.org.
    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 6, 
2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on January 10, 2011 (76 FR 1459).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-4918 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of Terremark Worldwide, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Manuel
D. Medina, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  June 14, 2004



                                                         /s/ MANUEL D. MEDINA
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Manuel D. Medina
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
§ 112.2 Public availability of requests (52 U.S.C. 30108(d)). ( a ) Advisory opinion requests which qualify under 11 CFR 112.1 shall be made public at the Commission promptly upon their receipt.
( b ) A copy of the original request and any supplements thereto, shall be available for public inspection at the Public Disclosure and Media Relations Division of the Commission and on the Commission's website
[45 FR 15123, Mar. 7, 1980, as amended at 81 FR 94240, Dec. 23, 2016; 89 FR 218, Jan. 2, 2024]
#### § 700.139 Referral for action.

Upon the expiration of all notice periods and upon the failure or refusal of any relocatees to make timely arrangements to move, the Commission shall forward the names and addresses of such relocatees to the Secretary of the Interior and to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona for such action as they deem appropriate. The Commission will assure the availability of relocation assistance to which the relocatees may be entitled.
### §§591 to 599. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section 591, R.S. §5208; acts July 12, 1882, ch. 290, §13, 22 Stat. 166; Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, §7, 40 Stat. 972; Feb. 25, 1927, ch. 191, §12, 44 Stat. 1231, related to unlawful certification of checks. See section 1004 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 592, R.S. §5209; acts Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, §7, 40 Stat. 972; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title III, §316, 49 Stat. 712, related to embezzlement. See sections 334, 656, and 1005 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 593, acts Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §22(a), 38 Stat. 272; Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, §5, 40 Stat. 970; Feb. 25, 1927, ch. 191, §15, 44 Stat. 1232; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title III, §326(a), 49 Stat. 715, related to loans and gratuities.

Section 594, acts Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §22(b), 38 Stat. 272; Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, §5, 40 Stat. 970; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title III, §326(b), 49 Stat. 716, related to bank examiners performing other services for compensation and disclosure of information. See sections 1906 and 1909 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 595, acts Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §22(c), 38 Stat. 272; June 21, 1917, ch. 32, §11, 40 Stat. 240; Sept. 26, 1918, ch. 177, §5, 40 Stat. 970, related to officers and employees accepting commissions and gifts for procuring loans. See section 215 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 596, act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §22(h), as added June 19, 1934, ch. 653, §3, 48 Stat. 1107, related to false statements or overvaluation of securities to secure loan. See section 1014 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 597, act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §22(i), as added June 19, 1934, ch. 653, §3, 48 Stat. 1107, related to embezzlement, etc. See sections 655 and 1005 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 598, act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §22(j), as added June 19, 1934, ch. 653, §3, 48 Stat. 1107, related to application of former sections 202 to 207 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section 599, act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §22(k), as added June 19, 1934, ch. 653, §3, 48 Stat. 1107, related to fees, commissions, and bonuses in connection with loans. See section 214 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
# C_2007082EN.01003701.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/37

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Kustom Musical Amplification v OHIM (Shape of a guitar)

(Case T-317/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark - Shape of a guitar - Absolute ground for refusal - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Statement of reasons - Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2007/C 82/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kustom Musical Amplification Inc., (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and T. Bamford, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2005 (Case R 1035/2004-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional mark in the shape of a guitar as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 June 2005 (Case R 1035/2004-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 June 2005 (Case R 1035/2004-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.

1

---
# C_2012138EN.01002303.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/23

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 —  VE (*1) v Commission

(Case F-28/10) (1)

(Staff cases - Contractual agents - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions laid down in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Habitual residence prior to taking up duties)

(2012/C 138/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VE (*1) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision putting an end to the payment of the expatriation allowance previously paid to the applicant

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action brought by  VE (*1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action brought by  VE (*1);

| 2. | Orders  VE (*1) to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders  VE (*1) to pay all the costs.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 58.

---