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

238 N. W. 2d 246

Filed February 5, 1976.

No. 40204.

Paul E. Watts, J. Joseph McQuillan, Gerald E. Moran, and Robert C. Sigler, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Melvin K. Kammerlohr, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

McCown, J.

The defendant pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury. He was found guilty by the District Court and. sentenced to the Division of Corrections for an indeterminate period of not less than 1 nor more than 2 years. The statutory penalty is not less than 1 year nor more than 20 years. The sole issue is the excessiveness of the sentence.

The record shows that the defendant had been drinking for some hours before the offense occurred. Around 4 a.m., he met a girl in the coffee shop at the bus *407station and requested her assistance in getting a suitcase out of his car. When they got outside, the defendant proceeded to beat the girl severely and violently for no apparent reason. The victim suffered facial lacerations, multiple bruises, and severe swelling around her lips and both eyes. She was hospitalized for several days for treatment of the injuries.

The defendant was 24 years, old with a high school education and no previous criminal record except minor traffic offenses. He had served in the military service for 2 years and had received an honorable discharge. He was regularly employed with a good work record.

The defendant contends that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to deny him probation. If we were to accept defendant’s arguments, first offenders with a good prior record would be entitled to probation as a matter of right, regardless of the seriousness of the crime or of the violence used in its commission. The premise is unacceptable.

Our statutes specifically authorize the imposition of imprisonment rather than probation where the granting of probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense or promote disrespect for law. § 29-2260(2) (c), R. S. Supp., 1974.

Under factual circumstances somewhat similar to those here, this court said: “Probation might have been appropriate except for the seriousness of the offense and the violence with which it was committed.” State v. Radtke, 193 Neb. 853, 229 N. W. 2d 209. Inevitably there are cases in which the decision to grant or not to grant probation is one of delicate balance and in those cases the judicial discretion of the trial court should be accorded great weight.

This court will not overturn an order or sentence of the trial court which denies probation unless there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Purviance, 194 Neb. 541, 233 N. W. 2d 788. We cannot say that the *408trial court abused its discretion here. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
# C_2007050EN.01000201.xml

| 6.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 50/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 50/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 March 2007

(2007/C 50/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3083 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 150,93 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4482 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68220 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3308 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6000 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 90,04 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1830 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5794 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,188 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 254,63 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7063 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9100 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4000 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 34,420 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9049 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6897 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5450 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2237 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9367 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0010 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 244,39 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8136 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,1393 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3375 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 108,32 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6019 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,845 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,3740 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,370 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3083

JPY

Japanese yen

150,93

DKK

Danish krone

7,4482

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68220

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3308

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6000

ISK

Iceland króna

90,04

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1830

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5794

CZK

Czech koruna

28,188

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

254,63

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7063

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9100

RON

Romanian leu

3,4000

SKK

Slovak koruna

34,420

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9049

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6897

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5450

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2237

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9367

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0010

KRW

South Korean won

1 244,39

ZAR

South African rand

9,8136

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,1393

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3375

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 108,32

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6019

PHP

Philippine peso

63,845

RUB

Russian rouble

34,3740

THB

Thai baht

43,370

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
§ 381.187 Cooperation of States for the interstate shipment of poultry products. ( a ) The Administrator is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 472(b) to coordinate with States that have poultry products inspection programs as provided in § 381.185 of this subpart to select certain establishments operating under these programs to participate in a cooperative program to ship poultry products in interstate commerce. A cooperative program for this purpose is called a “cooperative interstate shipment program.”
( b ) Establishments selected to participate in a cooperative interstate shipment program described in this section must receive inspection services from designated State personnel that have been trained in the enforcement of the Act. If the designated personnel determine that the poultry products prepared in establishments selected to participate in the cooperative interstate shipment program comply with all requirements under the Act, these items will bear an official Federal mark of inspection and may be shipped in interstate commerce. The Administrator will assign an FSIS “selected establishment coordinator,” who will be an FSIS employee, to each State that participates in a cooperative interstate shipment program to provide Federal oversight of the program and enforcement of the program's requirements. The Federal contribution for inspection services provided by States that enter into a cooperative interstate shipment program under this section will be at least 60 percent of eligible State costs. Eligible State costs are those costs that a State has justified and FSIS has approved as necessary for the State to provide inspection services to selected establishments in the State.
( c ) Subpart Z, of this part 381 prescribes conditions under which States and establishments may participate in the cooperative interstate shipment program.
( d ) The Administrator will terminate a cooperative interstate shipment agreement with a State if the Administrator determines that the State is not conducting inspection at selected establishments in a manner that complies with the Act and the implementing regulations in this chapter.
[76 FR 24756, May 2, 2011]
-90 -88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

 44

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/03

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 03 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
§ 301.1 General. For purposes of this chapter and unless otherwise specifically provided by regulation or required in the context of particular regulations: ( a ) Terms have the meanings set forth in this part;
( b ) The singular form also imports the plural, and the masculine form also imports the feminine and vice versa.
[69 FR 254, Jan. 5, 2004]
§ 313.50 Tagging of equipment, alleyways, pens, or compartments to prevent inhumane slaughter or handling in connection with slaughter. When an inspector observes an incident of inhumane slaughter or handling in connection with slaughter, he/she shall inform the establishment operator of the incident and request that the operator take the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence. If the establishment operator fails to take such action or fails to promptly provide the inspector with satisfactory assurances that such action will be taken, the inspector shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section, as appropriate. ( a ) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of facility deficiencies, disrepair, or equipment breakdown, the inspector shall attach a “U.S. Rejected” tag thereto. No equipment, alleyway, pen or compartment so tagged shall be used until made acceptable to the inspector. The tag shall not be removed by anyone other than an inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior to such tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under inspection.
( b ) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of establishment employee actions in the handling or moving of livestock, the inspector shall attach a “U.S. Rejected” tag to the alleyways leading to the stunning area. After the tagging of the alleyway, no more livestock shall be moved to the stunning area until the inspector receives satisfactory assurances from the establishment operator that there will not be a recurrence. The tag shall not be removed by anyone other than an inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior to the tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under inspection.
( c ) If the cause of inhumane treatment is the result of improper stunning, the inspector shall attach a “U.S. Rejected” tag to the stunning area. Stunning procedures shall not be resumed until the inspector receives satisfactory assurances from the establishment operator that there will not be a recurrence. The tag shall not be removed by anyone other than an inspector. All livestock slaughtered prior to such tagging may be dressed, processed, or prepared under inspection.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 /s/ JOHANN DREYERJohann DreyerChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.b



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



|Date:            |  |                            
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------
|January 23, 2007 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                 |  |                            
|                 |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                 |  | Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 13, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129690 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, CAROLYN JEWELL and WILLIAM JEWELL, Justices 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 129690 

 COA: 255661 

Jackson CC: 02-003254-NM 

LORNA PINSON, M.D., LORNA G. PINSON, 

M.D., P.L.L.C., THERESA BARTOS 

HOLLADAY, D.O., THERESA BARTOS 

HOLLADAY, D.O., P.C., and W.A. FOOTE 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 1, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0406 

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. 

April 13, 2006 

Clerk
### §933. Coast Guard ensigns and pennants

(a) Vessels and aircraft authorized by the Secretary shall be distinguished from other vessels and aircraft by an ensign, pennant, or other identifying insignia of such design as prescribed by the Secretary. Such ensign, pennant, or other identifying insignia shall be displayed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(b) No vessel or aircraft without authority shall carry, hoist, or display any ensign, pennant, or other identifying insignia prescribed for, or intended to resemble, any ensign, pennant, or other identifying insignia prescribed for Coast Guard vessels or aircraft. An individual violating this subsection shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 546, §638; Pub. L. 111–281, title II, §213(b), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2915; renumbered §933, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §107(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4205; Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8505(a)(9), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4748.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 14, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §64 (R.S. 2764; Aug. 5, 1935, ch. 438, title III, §308, 49 Stat. 528).

Aircraft are included within the provisions of this section.

The Secretary rather than the President is given the authority to design ensigns and pennants.

Unauthorized display of such insignia is made illegal anywhere rather than only "within the jurisdiction of the United States".

The language is broadened to include "any person violating this section"; existing law applies to masters of offending vessels only. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "An individual" for "Every person".

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 638 of this title as this section.

2010—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–281 substituted "Vessels and aircraft authorized by the Secretary" for "Coast Guard vessels and aircraft".
### §5611. Liquidity event determination

#### (a) Determination and written recommendation

#### (1) Determination request

The Secretary may request the Corporation and the Board of Governors to determine whether a liquidity event exists that warrants use of the guarantee program authorized under section 5612 of this title.

#### (2) Requirements of determination

Any determination pursuant to paragraph (1) shall—

(A) be written; and

(B) contain an evaluation of the evidence that—

(i) a liquidity event exists;

(ii) failure to take action would have serious adverse effects on financial stability or economic conditions in the United States; and

(iii) actions authorized under section 5612 of this title are needed to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects on the United States financial system or economic conditions.

#### (b) Procedures

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, upon the determination of both the Corporation (upon a vote of not fewer than 2/3 of the members of the Corporation then serving) and the Board of Governors (upon a vote of not fewer than 2/3 of the members of the Board of Governors then serving) under subsection (a) that a liquidity event exists that warrants use of the guarantee program authorized under section 5612 of this title, and with the written consent of the Secretary—

(1) the Corporation shall take action in accordance with section 5612(a) of this title; and

(2) the Secretary (in consultation with the President) shall take action in accordance with section 5612(c) of this title.

#### (c) Documentation and review

#### (1) Documentation

The Secretary shall—

(A) maintain the written documentation of each determination of the Corporation and the Board of Governors under this section; and

(B) provide the documentation for review under paragraph (2).

#### (2) GAO review

The Comptroller General of the United States shall review and report to Congress on any determination of the Corporation and the Board of Governors under subsection (a), including—

(A) the basis for the determination; and

(B) the likely effect of the actions taken.

#### (d) Report to Congress

On the earlier of the date of a submission made to Congress under section 5612(c) of this title, or within 30 days of the date of a determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide written notice of the determination of the Corporation and the Board of Governors to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives, including a description of the basis for the determination.

(Pub. L. 111–203, title XI, §1104, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2120.)

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

#### Effective Date

Subchapter effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 5301 of this title.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Accepts Applications for Rural Energy for America Program 

WASHINGTON, December 16, 2022 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack 

yesterday announced that the department is making $300 million available under the Rural Energy for America 

Program (REAP) to expand renewable energy and support energy-efficiency projects for people living in rural 

America. This funding includes $250 million provided by the Biden-Harris Administration’s historic legislative 

package known as the Inflation Reduction Act.

USDA Rural Development is in a unique position to make climate-smart investments in rural infrastructure. The 

Inflation Reduction Act represents the largest ever federal investment in clean energy for the future. This 

historic funding will strengthen our energy security, create good-paying jobs, and save Americans money on 

their energy costs. 

USDA is seeking applications for Fiscal Year 2023 funding. Two significant changes to this additional funding 

include an increase in the maximum Federal grant share from 25% to 40% of total project cost and an increase 

of maximum grant amounts from $250,000 to $500,000 for energy efficiency projects and an increase from 

$500,000 to $1,000,000 for renewable energy systems. Projects in underserved areas are prioritized for funding 

under this notice.

USDA will host an informational webinar for applicants and stakeholders on Wednesday, December 21, 

2022, from 3:00 - 4:30pm Eastern Time. To register, visit: 

https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_BSQ3b8K6Sz-sbpdJluEtfw.

Agricultural producers and rural small businesses are eligible applicants for loan guarantees and grants to 

develop renewable energy systems and to make energy efficiency improvements. State and local governments, 

federally-recognized tribes, land-grant colleges or universities or other institutions of higher education, rural 

electric cooperatives, public power entities, and Resource Conservation & Development Councils (as defined in 

16 USC §3451) are eligible applicants for grants to conduct energy audits and provide development assistance.

Interested applicants are encouraged to contact their local USDA Rural Development State Energy Coordinator

well in advance of the application deadlines to discuss their project and ask any questions about the REAP

program or the application process. 

Additional information on the required materials and how to apply for the REAP program are available on page 

77059 of the Dec. 16, 2022, Federal Register.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page.

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender
H. Res. 474

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 13, 2000.

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany

the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290) establishing the

congressional budget for the United States Government for

fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the

United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting

forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years

2002 through 2005. All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The

conference report shall be considered as read. The conference

report shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and

controlled by chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on the Budget.

Attest:

Clerk.