alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF GUAM v. FRANCISCO T. CEPEDA, JUNIOR A. PACO, HILARION S. N. SUSUICO & ISABEL M. T. CEPEDA, Defendants

Criminal No. 370-75

Superior Court of Guam

October 21, 1976

ABBATE, *Judge*

DECISION

The defendant Isabel M. T. Cepeda filed on August 12, 1976, a Motion to Dismiss the Second Charge of the information on the basis that Section 415 of the Penal Code of Guam and said charge thereon are unconstitutional, vague, and violative of defendant’s right to freedom of speech. The People opposed this motion by its memorandum of law filed on August 19th.

The Second Charge reads as follows:

> *353In that the said Isabel M. T. Cepeda, on or about the 12th day of. July, 1975, in the Territory of Guam did maliciously and willfully disturb the peace and quiet of persons at the Celebrity Inn, *by her loud or unusual noise,*in violation of the Penal Code of Guam. (Emphasis added.)

This Court finds that the Second Charge is an unconstitutional infringement upon the defendant’s right of freedom of speech and, therefore, grants defendant’s motion dismissing said charge.

Submit order.
*M*.t 4. 2015 RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS The Court of Criminal Appeals

Office of the Clerk

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711

RE:Gomez v. State, PD-0138-15

COA no. 12-13-0050-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 241-0529-12

AUG 112015

A&eE Acosta,Clerk

Dear Clerk/

I recently received the answer to my correspondence

concerning the status of my P.D.R. The Court notified me on July

24/ 2015/ that my P.D.R. was Refused on 6/17/2015/ however/ I

never received any notification from the Court. Would you please

verify that the notification was properly forwarded to me here at

the below enlisted address/ and contact me at the same address.

Thank you for your time/

Cffiar ftomgrZCesar Gomez

TDCJ-ID t 1839985

Bastham Unit

2665 Prison Road # 1

Lovelady/ Texas 75851

cc/ file
#### § 158.4 Form and style.

Each memoranda must be complete in itself. All pertinent data should be set forth fully, and each memorandum should set out the facts and argument as prescribed for briefs in § 385.706 of this chapter.

[Order 141, 12 FR 8603, Dec. 19, 1947, as amended by Order 225, 47 FR 19057, May 3, 1982]
§ 592.200 Debarment. ( a ) The following acts or practices or the causing thereof may be deemed sufficient cause for the debarment by the Administrator of any person, including any agents, officers, subsidiaries, or affiliates of such person, from any or all benefits of the Act for a specified period. ( 1 ) Misrepresentation, or deceptive or fraudulent act or practice. Any willful misrepresentation or any deceptive or fraudulent act or practice found to be made or committed by any person in connection with: ( i ) The making or filing of an application for any service or appeal;
( ii ) The making of the product accessible for sampling or inspection;
( iii ) The making, issuing, or using, or attempting to issue or use, any certificate, symbol, stamp, label, seal, or identification authorized pursuant to the regulations in this part;
( iv ) The use of the terms “United States,” “U.S.,” “U.S. Inspected,” “Government Inspected,” or terms of similar import in the labeling or advertising of any product;
( v ) The use of any official stamp, symbol, label, seal, or identification in the labeling or advertising of any product.
( 2 ) *Use of facsimile forms.* Using or attempting to use a form that simulates in whole or in part any certificate, symbol, stamp, label, seal, or identification authorized to be issued or used under the regulations in this part.
( 3 ) Willful violation of the regulations. Any willful violation of the regulations in this part or of the Act.
( 4 ) Interfering with inspection program personnel or program employee of the Agency. Any interference with or obstruction or any attempted interference or obstruction of or assault upon any inspection program personnel or program employee of the Agency in the performance of their duties. The giving or offering, directly or indirectly, of any money, loan, gift, or anything of value to a program employee of the Agency, or the making or offering of any contribution to or in any way supplementing the salary, compensation or expenses of a program employee of the Agency, or the offering or entering into a private contract or agreement with a program employee of the Agency for any services to be rendered while employed by the Agency.
( 5 ) *Miscellaneous.* The existence of any of the conditions set forth in § 592.150 constituting the basis for the rejection of an application for inspection service.
T.C. Memo. 1995-461

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

LOUIS G. WITTIG, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 673-94. Filed September 27, 1995.

This opinion was withdrawn by Order dated November 9, 1995.
Order filed October 6, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00630-CV

____________

EMILY AND OLIVIA RICE, Appellants

V.

PEGGY EVELYN RICE, Appellee

On Appeal from the Probate Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-0074518-A

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed September 15, 2016. Our review has determined 

that relevant items have been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain the notice of appeal or certified bill of costs.

The Galveston County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record 

on or before October 21, 2016, containing the notice of appeal and certified bill of 

costs.
2

If the omitted items are not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

items are not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
§ 2.105 Gas supply charges. An interstate natural gas pipeline that transports under part 284 of this chapter may include in its tariff a charge, not related to facilities, for standing ready to supply gas to sales customers in accordance with the following principles: ( a ) The pipeline may not recover take-or-pay or similar charges from suppliers by any other means.
( b ) The pipeline must allow its sales customers to nominate levels of service freely within their firm sales entitlements or otherwise employ a mechanism for the renegotiation of levels of service at regular intervals.
( c ) The pipeline must announce prior to nominations by the customers a firm price or pricing formula for the service, and hold that price or pricing formula firm during the interval arranged in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) By nominating a new level of service lower than its current level, a customer has consented to any abandonment sought by the pipeline commensurate with the difference between the current level of service and the nominated level.
[Order 500, 52 FR 30352, Aug. 14, 1987; 52 FR 35539, Sept. 22, 1987, and 54 FR 52394, Dec. 21, 1989]
§ 154.112 Exception to form and composition of tariff. ( a ) The Commission may permit a special rate schedule to be filed in the form of an agreement in the case of a special operating arrangement, previously certificated pursuant to part 157 of this chapter, such as for the exchange of natural gas. The special rate schedule must contain a title page showing the parties to the agreement, the date of the agreement, a brief description of services to be rendered, and the designation: “Rate Schedule X-[number].” Special rate schedules may not contain any supplements. Modifications must be made by inserting revised sheets, sections or the entire document as appropriate. Special rate schedules must be included in a separate volume of the tariff. Each such separate volume must contain a table of contents which is incorporated as a sheet or section in the open access transmission tariff.
( b ) Contracts for service pursuant to part 284 of this chapter that deviate in any material aspect from the form of service agreement must be filed. Such non-conforming agreements must be referenced in the open access transmission tariff.
[Order 582, 60 FR 52996, Oct. 11, 1995, as amended by Order 714, 73 FR 57534, Oct. 3, 2008; 81 FR 51100, Aug. 3, 2016]
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ NETWORK

- 1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
HEWLETT

- PACKARD COMPANY, HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, Defendants

- Cross

- Appellants

______________________ 2018

- 2338, 2018

- 2339, 2018

- 2395, 2018

- 2396

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No s . 6:11

- cv
- 00492

- RWS, 6:13

- cv
- 00072

- RWS, Judge Robert Schroeder , III.

______________________ ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

______________________ Before P ROST , Chief Judge , N EWMAN and B RYSON , Circuit Judges. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R Appellant Network

- 1 Technologies, Inc. filed a petition for panel rehearing. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by Cross

- Appellants Hewlett

Case: 18-2338 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2020NETWORK

- 1 TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. v. HEWLETT

- PACKARD COMPANY 2

Packard Company and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. Cross

- A ppellants also separ ately filed a petition for panel rehearing. Upon consideration thereof, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing is granted to the extent that the previous precedential opinionand judgment issued September 24, 2020, are withdrawn and replaced with the modified precedential opinion and judgment accompanying this order. (2) Cross

- A ppellants’ petition for panel rehearing is denied. (3) The mandate of the court shall issue on December 28, 2020

.

F OR THE C OURT
November 20 , 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 18-2338 Document: 80 Page: 2 Filed: 11/20/2020
§ 1302.12 Effect on other regulations; supervision and coordination. ( a ) *Effect on other regulations.* All regulations, orders, or like directions heretofore issued by TVA which impose requirements designed to prohibit any discrimination against individuals on the ground of race, color, or national origin to which this regulation applies, and which authorize the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue financial assistance to any recipient of such assistance under such program for failure to comply with such requirements, are hereby superseded to the extent that such discrimination is prohibited by this part, except that nothing in this part shall be deemed to relieve any person of any obligation assumed or imposed under any such superseded regulation, order, instruction, or like direction prior to the effective date of this part. Nothing in this part, however, shall be deemed to supersede any of the following (including future amendments thereof): ( 1 ) Executive Order 12250 and regulations issued thereunder, or
( 2 ) Any other regulations or instructions, insofar as they prohibit discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in any program or situation to which this regulation is inapplicable, or prohibit discrimination on any other ground.
( b ) *Supervision and coordination.* TVA may from time to time assign to officials of other departments or agencies of the Government with the consent of such departments or agencies, responsibilities in connection with the effectuation of the purposes of Title VI of the Act and this part (other than responsibility for final decision as provided in § 1302.9), including the achievement of effective coordination and maximum uniformity within the Executive Branch of the Government in the application of Title VI and this part to similar programs and in similar situations. Any action taken, determination made, or requirement imposed by an official of another department or agency acting pursuant to an assignment of responsibility under this subsection shall have the same effect as though such action had been taken by TVA.
[38 FR 17945, July 5, 1973. Redesignated at 44 FR 30682, May 29, 1979. Redesignated and amended at 49 FR 20484, May 15, 1984; 68 FR 51355, Aug. 26, 2003]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURE FOR MICROWAVE OVENS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW. 

Washington, DC 20585 

Friday, November 14, 2008 

9 a.m. – 4 p.m. ET, Room 8E-089 

Purpose 

During this meeting the Department of Energy (DOE) will present the notice of proposed 

rulemaking on test procedures for microwave ovens in standby mode and off mode. This 

meeting is intended to familiarize interested stakeholders with DOE’s statutory 

requirements and proposed test procedures. 

Agenda 

 9:00-9:05 am Welcome 

 

 9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review

 Doug Brookman 

 9:15-9:45 am Stakeholder Opening Statements 

 Doug Brookman 

 

 9:45-10:00 am Introduction, Background and Legal Authority 

Stephen Witkowski 

Overview of past and current microwave oven rulemakings, 

including statutory authority, schedules, and associated 

documents. 

 

 10:00-10:45 am Test Procedure: Covered Products, Effective Date, and 

Measures of Energy Consumption 

Judith Reich 

Definition of covered products, effective date of the 

amended test procedure, and discussion of the technical 

feasibility of incorporating standby and off mode power 

into the energy descriptor. 

 10:45-11:00 am Test Procedure: Incorporation by Reference of IEC 

Standard 62301 

Judith Reich 

Proposed incorporation of the methodology of IEC 

Standard 62301 for measuring standby and off mode power 

consumption. 

 11:00-11:15 am Break 

 EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 05
 

 

 11:15-11:30 am Test Procedure: Definitions of “Active Mode”, 

“Standby Mode”, and “Off Mode” 

Judith Reich 

Proposed mode definitions under EPCA, as amended by the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 

 11:30-12:00 am Test Procedure: Specifications for Test Methods and 

Measurements for Standby and Off Mode Testing 

Judith Reich 

Proposed amendments to add specificity to test 

methodology in IEC Standard 62301 for measuring 

microwave oven standby and off mode power. 

 12:00-1:00 pm Break for Lunch (on your own) 

 1:00-1:15 pm Test Procedure: Technical Correction 

Judith Reich 

Proposed correction to the conversion factor used in the 

calculation of microwave oven test cooking energy output. 

 1:15-1:30 pm Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements 

Judith Reich 

Summary presentation of the test burden requirements 

under EPCA. 

 1:30-1:45 pm Conclusions and Closing Remarks 

Stephen Witkowski 

Discuss outstanding issues and make concluding remarks. 

 1:45 pm Adjourn 

 EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 05
# C_2010301EN.01006301.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/63

---

Action brought on 24 July 2010 — AF v Commission

(Case F-61/10)

()

2010/C 301/100

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AF (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the defendant’s decision refusing the request for assistance relating to psychological harassment of which the applicant claims to have been a victim and claim for compensation for the non-material damage suffered.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Decision No 24938 of 28 September 2009 by which the appointing authority of the Commission refused the request for assistance D/300/09 brought by the applicant pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, concerning the psychological harassment suffered and/or experienced in his service in the period subject to all necessary reservations from April 2004 to April 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision No 24938 of 28 September 2009 by which the appointing authority of the Commission refused the request for assistance D/300/09 brought by the applicant pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, concerning the psychological harassment suffered and/or experienced in his service in the period subject to all necessary reservations from April 2004 to April 2009;

| — | allocate to the applicant EUR 600 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the harassment and the effect on his health; |
| --- | --- |

—

allocate to the applicant EUR 600 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the harassment and the effect on his health;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
### §5804. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, §7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379

Section, Pub. L. 102–588, title V, §505, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5124, related to space transportation infrastructure matching grants.
### §§208a to 212. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 644, 646

Sections, acts July 18, 1918, ch. 156, §§1–5, 40 Stat. 912, 913; Mar. 3, 1919, ch. 96, 40 Stat. 1291; Apr. 16, 1926, ch. 148, 44 Stat. 297, created Commission for the Standardization of Screw Threads and provided for composition of Commission, its duties, and pay.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 Information Holdings Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), we, Mason P. Slaine, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Vincent A. Chippari, Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Mason P. Slaine                                  |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mason P. Slaine                                      |
| President and Chief Executive Officer                |
|                                                 |
|                                                 |
| /s/Vincent A. Chippari                               |   |
| Vincent A. Chippari                                  |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                 |
|                                                 |
| November 12, 2003                               |

 

A signed original statement of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required bySection 906, has been provided to Information Holdings Inc. and will beretained by Information Holdings Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
/* globals drupalSettings */

try {
  window.H5PIntegration = drupalSettings.h5p.H5PIntegration;
}
catch (err) {
  console.error('Missing H5PIntegration settings.');
}
# C_2011173EN.01001101.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/11

---

Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-480/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 173/25

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/426/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11xGA21 (SYN-BTØ11-1xMON-ØØØ21-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 199, p. 36).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
#### John G. Bennett, Appellant, v. John Schultz and Mary Schultz, Respondents.

— Motion granted unless the appellant perfect his appeal within ten days and put the. case on the calendar for argument. If he cannot obtain the minutes, then let the Municipal Court justice make his return as best he can. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ.