alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011232EN.01004303.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/43

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 April 2011 — AR v Commission

(Case F-120/10) (1)

(2011/C 232/80)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.11, p. 35.

---
# C_2012355EN.01003702.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/37

---

Order of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM TeliaSonera Denmark (Nuance de magenta)

(Case T-583/10) (1)

1

2012/C 355/78

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.

1

---
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00145

- CR

T HOMAS E DWARD D EMOPOULOS

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 355th District Court

of Hood County ( CR11818 )

August 8, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in two of the trial court’s judgment s . The Count Three and Count Four

judgment s are modified to strike the incorporated orders to withdraw $10,000 in

funds

. We modify the bill of costs to reduce the “Criminal Fine Fee” from $30,000 to

$10,000. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
# C_2006331EN.01003601.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/36

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — J v Commission

(Case T-379/04) (1)

1

(Remuneration - Expatriation allowance and installation allowance - Conditions laid down in Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - ‘Work done for another State’ - Recovery of sums paid but not due)

(2006/C 331/79)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: J (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Forte, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 June 2004 expressly rejecting the applicant's complaints, and of the Commission's decision of 31 October 2003 refusing her the expatriation allowance and the installation allowance provided for in Articles 4 and 5, respectively, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, and of the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 demanding repayment of the sums received in that respect.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

.

| 2. | Orders the parties each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

1

---
§ 1301.45 Procedure for closing meetings. ( a ) Action under § 1301.46 to close a meeting shall be taken only when a majority of the members vote to take such action. A separate vote shall be taken with respect to each meeting a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public pursuant to § 1301.46 or with respect to any information which is proposed to be withheld under § 1301.46. A single vote may be taken with respect to a series of meetings, a portion or portions of which are proposed to be closed to the public, or with respect to any information concerning such series of meetings, so long as each meeting in such series involves the same particular matters and is scheduled to be held no more than 30 days after the initial meeting in such series. The vote of each member participating in such vote shall be recorded and no proxies shall be allowed.
( b ) Notwithstanding that the members may have already voted not to close a meeting, whenever any person whose interests may be directly affected by a portion of a meeting requests that the agency close such portion to the public for any of the reasons referred to in paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of § 1301.46, the Board, upon request of any one of its members made prior to the commencement of such portion, shall vote by recorded vote whether to close such portion of the meeting.
( c ) Within one day of any vote taken pursuant to this section, TVA shall make publicly available in accordance with § 1301.48 a written copy of such vote reflecting the vote of each member on the question. If a portion of a meeting is to be closed to the public, TVA shall, within one day of the vote taken pursuant to this section, make publicly available in accordance with § 1301.48 a full written explanation of this action closing the portion together with a list of all persons expected to attend the meeting and their affiliation.
( d ) Prior to every meeting closed pursuant to § 1301.46, there shall be a certification by the General Counsel of TVA stating whether, in his or her opinion, the meeting may be closed to the public and each relevant exemptive provision. A copy of such certification shall be retained by TVA and shall be made publicly available in accordance with § 1301.48.
[42 FR 14087, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 75 FR 11737, Mar. 12, 2010]
2015 CROP YEAR

NON-IRRIGATED BARLEY

YIELD EXCLUSION (YE)

Gulf of Mexico

Atlantic

Ocean

Pacific

Ocean

-130° -120° -110° -100° -90° -80° -70° -60°

45° 40° 35° 30° 25°

Coordinate System: Albers

Central Meridian: 96°0'0"W

1st Std Parallel: 20°0'0"N

2nd Std Parallel: 60°0'0"N

Latitude of Origin: 40°0'0"N

Metadata:

County Files - US Census Tiger

Files 2013

YE Coverage - USDA - RMA

December 2014

0 125 250 500 750 1,000

Miles

STATEMENT

The Maps produced represent

the number of years (since 1995)

eligible for yield exclusion for

the 2015 crop year.

Document Path: K:\APH\NonIrrigated\Barley\NonIrrigatedBarley.mxd

TABLE Links directly to the Commodity

table (double click)

Number of Years Eligible for

Yield Exclusion (YE)

0 years

1 year

2 to 4 years

5 to 7 years

8 to 10 years

11 to 15 years

Barley - Depicts only those counties with

a November 30th filing date.

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Miles
# C_2010346EN.01005804.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/58

---

Order of the General Court of 22 October 2010 — Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten v Commission

(Case T-151/10) (1)

1

()

2010/C 346/115

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
Exhibit




AMENDMENT NUMBER 6
TO THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY PENSION PLAN
CONSOLIDATED AS AT JANUARY 1, 2009
AMENDMENTS FOR CAW-TCA EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2012. 
Effective October 1, 2012,
Add new subparagraph 17.01(e) as follows:
		
	17.01
	(e)    “Approved Pensionable Service”, when used with reference to paragraph 17.09, refers to Service rendered by a Member while receiving Employment Security Benefits after having attained Maximum Deemed Service which has been approved by the Canada Revenue Agency to be included as Pensionable Service, and for which the Member has made the required contributions in accordance with paragraph 17.09.


Add new paragraph 17.09 as follows:
		
	17.09
	(a)    The Company may enter into an agreement with a Union to seek approval from Canada Revenue Agency of periods of Approved Pensionable Service in respect of Members represented by the Union.


(b)     The agreement shall set out the criteria for determining the periods Service that may be eligible as Approved Pensionable Service and for which approval will be sought from Canada Revenue Agency.  
(c)    The agreement shall set out the method for determining the amounts that the Member must contribute to the Fund in respect of a period of Approved Pensionable Service, and the manner in which the Member may pay such contributions.
(d)    The agreement shall set out time periods for 
(i)    the Company to provide information and notice to the Member, and for the Member to respond to the Company,
(ii)    the Company to submit requests to Canada Revenue Agency for approvals of Approved Pensionable Service, and
(iii)    the Member to pay to the Fund the contributions required by the agreement.
(e)    A period of Service shall be considered Approved Pensionable Service and shall be included as Pensionable Service only after Canada Revenue Agency has given its written approval in respect of such period of Service, and after the Fund has received the full amount of the required contributions from the Member in respect of such period of Service.
PUBLIC LAW 113–216—DEC. 16, 2014 128 STAT. 2089 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3534: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

July 14, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 8, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–216 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 113 West 

Michigan Avenue in Jackson, Michigan, as the ‘‘Officer James Bonneau Memorial 

Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. OFFICER JAMES BONNEAU MEMORIAL POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 113 West Michigan Avenue in Jackson, Michigan, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Officer James Bonneau 

Memorial Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Officer James Bonneau Memorial Post Office’’. 

Approved December 16, 2014. 

Dec. 16, 2014 

[H.R. 3534] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LEJUNE NEISON CHRISTIE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-355

[June 30, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Kathleen McHugh, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 18-007847 

MM10A and 19-51 AC10A.

Gordon Weekes, Public Defender, and Sarah W. Sandler, Assistant 

Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.

WARNER, J., dissenting.

I dissent. In the trial of this domestic violence offense, a litany of 

evidentiary rulings were erroneous. The court allowed a 911 call into 

evidence, when it did not constitute an excited utterance because the State 

failed to show that the victim who made the call did not engage in reflective 

thought. See State v. Jano, 524 So. 2d 660, 661–62 (Fla. 1988). The court 

erred in allowing an officer to testify that her interviews of other witnesses 

who did not testify were consistent with the victim’s testimony, thus

providing inferential hearsay, defeating appellant’s Sixth Amendment right 

to confront witnesses against him. See Postell v. State, 398 So. 2d 851,

854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In addition, the court allowed the investigating 
2

officer to bolster her testimony on redirect. The officer stated that if she 

thought she had been given false statements, she would not have 

submitted the case to the State Attorney’s Office. Further, she testified 

that in her twenty-five years of policing, she would not move forward with 

an arrest unless she felt it was warranted. Her “integrity [wa]s entirely too 

high” to put her name on a probable cause affidavit unless she thought 

her investigation warranted it. These statements amount to improper 

bolstering and commenting on the guilt of the defendant. See, e.g.,

Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074, 1080 (Fla. 2000) (“[w]hen a police 

officer, who is generally regarded by the jury as disinterested and objective 

and therefore highly credible, is the corroborating witness, the danger of 

improperly influencing the jury becomes particularly grave.” (quoting 

Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493, 500 (Fla. 1992))). The door was not 

opened on cross-examination by the defense probing the extent of the 

officer’s investigation of the case. I cannot find that the cumulative effect 

of these rulings was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, a 

new trial is warranted.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5391]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1746]


Reorganization of Foreign-Trade Zone 46 Under Alternative Site 
Framework; Cincinnati, OH

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Board adopted the alternative site framework (ASF) (74 
FR 1170, 01/12/09; correction 74 FR 3987, 01/22/09; 75 FR 71069-71070, 
11/22/10) as an option for the establishment or reorganization of 
general-purpose zones;
    Whereas, the Greater Cincinnati Foreign-Trade Zone Inc., grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 46, submitted an application to the Board (FTZ 
Docket 41-2010, filed 5/21/2010) for authority to reorganize under the 
ASF with a service area of Hamilton, Butler, Warren, Brown and Clermont 
Counties, Ohio, in and adjacent to the Cincinnati Customs and Border 
Protection port of entry, FTZ 46's existing Sites 3, 4 and 5 would be 
categorized as magnet sites, and the grantee proposes an initial usage-
driven site (Site 6);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (75 FR 30774-30775, 6/2/2010) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to reorganize FTZ 46 under the alternative site 
framework is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Section 400.28, to the Board's standard 2,000-
acre activation limit for the overall general-purpose zone project, to 
a five-year ASF sunset provision for magnet sites that would terminate 
authority for Sites 3 and 5 if not activated by March 31, 2016, and to 
a three-year ASF sunset provision for usage-driven sites that would 
terminate authority for Site 6 if no foreign-status merchandise is 
admitted for a bona fide customs purpose by March 31, 2014.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

ATTEST:----------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5391 Filed 3-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.41 Explanation, scope and methods. ( a ) *Explanation.* Discovery is the process apart from the hearing whereby a party may obtain relevant information from another person, including a party, which has not otherwise been provided. Relevant information includes information which appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This information is obtained for the purpose of assisting the parties in developing, preparing, and presenting their cases. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be used as a general guide for discovery practices in proceedings before the Board, except as to matters specifically covered by these regulations. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be interpreted as instructive rather than controlling.
( b ) *Scope.* Any person may be examined pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section regarding any nonprivileged matter which is relevant to the issue under review, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of documents or other tangible things, and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts. The information sought must appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
( c ) *Methods.* Discovery may be obtained by one or more of the methods provided under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including written interrogatories, depositions, production of documents or things for inspection or copying, and requests for admission addressed to parties.
[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 69301, Dec. 12, 2003]
### §4053. Barter arrangements

#### (a) Report on status of Federal barter programs

The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy shall, not later than 90 days after July 12, 1985, submit to the Congress a report on the status of Federal programs relating to the barter or exchange of commodities owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation for materials and products produced in foreign countries. Such report shall include details of any changes necessary in existing law to allow the Department of Agriculture and, in the case of petroleum resources, the Department of Energy, to implement fully any barter program.

#### (b) Authorities of President

The President is authorized—

(1) to barter stocks of agricultural commodities acquired by the Government for petroleum and petroleum products, and for other materials vital to the national interest, which are produced abroad, in situations in which sales would otherwise not occur; and

(2) to purchase petroleum and petroleum products, and other materials vital to the national interest, which are produced abroad and acquired by persons in the United States through barter for agricultural commodities produced in and exported from the United States through normal commercial trade channels.

#### (c) Other provisions of law not affected

In the case of any petroleum, petroleum products, or other materials vital to the national interest, which are acquired under subsection (b), nothing in this section shall be construed to render inapplicable the provisions of any law then in effect which apply to the storage, distribution, or use of such petroleum, petroleum products, or other materials vital to the national interest.

#### (d) Conventional markets not to be displaced by barters

The President shall take steps to ensure that, in making any barter described in subsection (a) or (b)(1) or any purchase authorized by subsection (b)(2), existing export markets for agricultural commodities operating on conventional business terms are safeguarded from displacement by the barter described in subsection (a), (b)(1), or (b)(2), as the case may be. In addition, the President shall ensure that any such barter is consistent with the international obligations of the United States, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

#### (e) Report to Congress

The Secretary of Energy shall report to the Congress on the effect on energy security and on domestic energy supplies of any action taken under this section which results in the acquisition by the Government of petroleum or petroleum products. Such report shall be submitted to the Congress not later than 90 days after such acquisition.

(Pub. L. 99–64, title II, §203, July 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 158.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Export Administration Amendments Act of 1985, and not as part of Pub. L. 97–290 which enacted this chapter.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7581** 

ROBERT MILLER LATTIMORE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

MICHAEL A. GARRETT , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 5:12

- ct

- 03146

- F )

Submitted : February 25, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Robert Miller Lattimore, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Assistant Attorney General , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Miller Lattimore appeals the district cou rt’s order denying relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Following a bench trial, this court may reverse a district court’s factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Roanoke Ce ment Co. v. Falk Corp. , 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a district court’s factual finding in a bench trial is based upon assessments of witness credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest degree of appellate deference.” Evergreen In t’l, S.A. v. Norfolk Dredging Co. , 531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court’s factual findings, made based on its assessement of the credibility of the witnesses, are not clearly erroneo us, we affirm those findings and the judgment in favor of the defendant. Accordingly, we deny Lattimore’s motions for appointment of

counsel and to review the transcript, and his motion to show the North Carolina Department of Public Safety violated the se xual violence elimination policy . We affirm the district court’s judgment . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before this court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

#### § 28.80 Explanation.

An interlocutory appeal is an appeal to the Board of a ruling made by an administrative judge during the course of a proceeding. This appeal may be permitted by the administrative judge if they determine that the issue presented is of such importance to the proceeding that it requires the Board's immediate attention. The Board makes a decision on the issue and the administrative judge acts in accordance with that decision.

[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 89 FR 51399, June 18, 2024]
#### IN RE ESTATE OF FLETCHER

No. 546P89

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 275

Petition by Carol Fletcher Lanier for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 February 1990.