alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 5/1/07 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2007 ND 63

Pamela Jane Kostelecky, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Kim Wayne Kostelecky, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20060352

Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Ronald L. Hilden, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Mary E. Nordsven, Hardy, Maus & Nordsven, P.C., 137 First Avenue West, P.O. Box 570, Dickinson, N.D. 58602-0570, for plaintiff and appellee.

LaRoy Baird III (argued), LaRoy Baird, P.C., 109 North Fourth Street, Suite 300, P.O. Box 913, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-0913, and Bonnie L. Storbakken (on brief), P.O. Box 7273, Bismarck, N.D. 58507-7273, for defendant and appellant.

Kostelecky v. Kostelecky

No. 20060352

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Kim Wayne Kostelecky appeals from an amended divorce judgment after this Court affirmed the valuation of the marital property but reversed the award of spousal support, property division, and allocation of personal property in Kostelecky v. Kostelecky, 2006 ND 120, 714 N.W.2d 845.  Kostelecky argues the district court’s division of marital property and debt on remand was clearly erroneous.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
Editorial Note on Part 21
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 21 appear at 73 FR 32429, June 9, 2008.

§ 21.12 Distribution of decisions. ( a ) Unless it contains protected information, a copy of a decision shall be provided to the protester, any intervenors, and the agency involved; a copy also shall be made available to the public. A copy of a decision containing protected information shall be provided only to the agency and to individuals admitted to any protective order issued in the protest. A public version omitting the protected information shall be prepared wherever possible.
( b ) Decisions will be distributed to the parties through the EPDS.
[61 FR 39042, July 26, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 79836, Dec. 31, 2002; 73 FR 32430, June 9, 2008; 83 FR 13825, Apr. 2, 2018]
#### § 153.13 Emergency reconstruction.

The provisions of subpart F of part 157 of this chapter that permit reconstruction for the purpose of immediately restoring interrupted service for the protection of life or health or for maintenance of physical property in an emergency due to a sudden unanticipated loss of gas supply or capacity are applicable to facilities subject to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act.

[Order 633, 68 FR 31604, May 28, 2003]
* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 98-30722 Summary Calendar

_____________________ WILLIAM CHARLES AUTER STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TOM ED McHUGH, Etc., ET AL., Defendants, BEN ODOM, Sargent; DAN LARKIN, Individually and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

(97-CV-332)

_______________________________________________________ March 18, 1999 Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Defendants Bob Odom and Dan Larkin appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment. They are officers of the City of Baton Rouge who arrested the plaintiff by authority of a duly issued warrant. The district court denied summary judgment on2

the ground that plaintiff had raised an issue that the officers obtained the warrant by giving the magistrate false and misleading information in violation of Franks v. Delaware, 98 S.Ct. 2674 (1978). Because we find no evidence that the officers intended to mislead the magistrate, or recklessly did so, we sustain their appeal. The affidavit for the warrant states the nature of the knife attack upon the victim, the knife imprint on the carpet, and that the guilty knowledge of Stevenson was revealed by his statements to three separate individuals. Plaintiff faults the officers for not informing the magistrate that no fingerprints or other physical evidence at the crime scene implicated the plaintiff, that plaintiff made erroneous statements to his acquaintances about the precise location of the knife wounds, and falsely stating that the details of the crime had not been released and were known only to the guilty party. It was Detective Odom who signed the arrest warrant affidavit, and no reason is given for charging Detective Larkin with culpability. Nor do we see the justification for charging that Odom withheld evidence that tainted the magistrate’s decision to issue the warrant. After the preliminary examination the judge decided that probable cause was lacking to hold Stevenson, because testimony of witnesses at the hearing did not fit the conclusion that Stevenson’s information about the crime was confined to the officers and the guilty person. With the benefit of further testimony and hindsight,3

that was the finding of the court. Defendant Odom may have been mistaken, but no evidence suggests that he was without reason to state what he did when he signed the affidavit or was guilty of anything more than a mistake about the information available to
Stevenson. The order of the district court denying summary judgment is reversed and judgment is rendered dismissing the action against Ben Odom and Dan Larkin.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
#### § 590.240 Detaining product.

Whenever any eggs or egg products subject to the Act are found by any authorized representative of the Secretary upon any premises, and there is reason to believe that they are or have been processed, bought, sold, possessed, used, transported, or offered or received for sale or transportation in violation of the Act or the regulations in this part, or that they are in any other way in violation of the Act, such articles may be detained by such representative for a period not to exceed 20 days, as more fully provided in section 19 of the Act. A detention tag or other similar device shall be used to identify detained product, and the custodian or owner shall be given a written notice of such detention. Only authorized representatives of the Secretary shall affix or remove detention identification. The provisions of this section shall in no way derogate from authority for condemnation or seizure conferred by other provisions of the Act, the regulations in this part, or other laws.

[37 FR 6658, Apr. 1, 1972. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 63 FR 69972, Dec. 17, 1998]
#### § 1308.55 Penalties.

In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena by a person who resides, is found, or transacts business within the jurisdiction of a United States District Court, the Board will apply to the court through the General Counsel of TVA for an order requiring the person to appear before the Hearing Officer, to produce evidence or give testimony, or both. Any failure of any such person to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt thereof.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                                                     Exhibit 23.1

                  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (Registration Nos. 33-90138,
33-90852 and 33-92328) and on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-22547)
of Walden Residential Properties, Inc., our report dated March 3, 1997,
except as to Note 14 for which the date is February 18, 1998 (which
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
relating to the restatement described in Note 14) with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
Walden Residential Properties, Inc. and subsidiaries and our report
dated March 3, 1995, with respect to the combined financial statements of
Walden Predecessors appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A 
Amendment No. 3 of Walden Residential Properties, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1996, and to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
February 18, 1998
# C_2011340EN.01003703.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/37

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Van Soest v Commission

(Case F-117/10) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Recruitment - Competition - Conditions for admission - Required qualification - Concept of a diploma attesting to a level of secondary education and giving access to post-secondary education - Decisions of the selection board for a competition - Nature of the review exercised by the appointing authority)

2011/C 340/75

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Barry Van Soest (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision which terminated the recruitment procedure for the applicant, who had passed a competition and been included on the reserve list, because he did not hold a diploma of secondary education giving access to post-secondary education.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Van Soest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Van Soest.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.01.11, p. 66.

1

---
Unassociated Document


    [FINLAY
      ENTERPRISES,
      INC. LOGO]

    


    June
      5,
      2008   

    


    Mr.
      Arthur E. Reiner

    Finlay
      Enterprises, Inc.

    529
      Fifth
      Avenue

    New
      York,
      NY 10017

    


    
      	Re:	
              Finlay
                Enterprises, Inc. (the
“Corporation”)

            


    

    Repurchase
      of Outstanding Options  

     

    Dear
      Mr.
      Reiner:

    


    By
      signing below, you acknowledge your consent and agreement to the Corporation’s
      repurchase of your option to acquire 40,000 shares of the Corporation’s common
      stock granted to you on February 16, 2000 with a per share exercise price of
      $12.75 (the “Repurchased Options”). The Corporation will pay you $40.00, less
      applicable withholding taxes, as soon as practicable following its receipt
      of an
      executed copy of this letter. You acknowledge that such payment is full and
      adequate consideration for the Repurchased Options and that you are voluntarily
      relinquishing the Repurchased Options. The Repurchased Options will be
      immediately cancelled upon the Corporation’s payment to you of the foregoing
      amount.

    


    This
      letter is deemed to be an amendment to the option granted to you by the
      Corporation on February 16, 2000 to acquire 100,000 shares of the Corporation’s
      common stock with a per share exercise price of $12.75, and such option as
      amended, shall continue to apply solely with respect to your right to acquire
      60,000 shares of the Corporation’s common stock.

    


    Your
      consent and agreement to the terms of the repurchase is
      irrevocable.

    


    
      	 	
              FINLAY
                ENTERPRISES, INC.

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
              By
                

            	
              /s/
                Bonni G. Davis

            
	 	
               

            	
              Bonni
                G. Davis

            
	 	
               

            	
              V.P.,
                Secretary & General Counsel

            


    

    


    Accepted
      and Agreed to:

    
 

    
      	
              By
                

            	
              /s/
                Arthur E. Reiner

            	 
	
              Arthur
                E. Reiner

            	 
	
              President
                & Chief Executive Officer
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Feedback to Launch Program to Create High-Wage Jobs in Rural

Communities and Strengthen Regional Economies

WASHINGTON, July 22, 2020 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Deputy Under 

Secretary Bette Brand today announced that USDA is seeking feedback to launch a new program to help create

high-wage jobs in rural communities and strengthen regional economies.

Under the Rural Innovation Stronger Economy (RISE) program, USDA intends to make grants available to help 

eligible entities establish jobs accelerators and Innovation Centers to support the rural workforce by helping 

rural communities identify and maximize local assets and connect to regional opportunities, networks, and 

industry clusters. RISE will be delivered in accordance with the provisions of Section 6424 of the Agriculture 

Improvement Act of 2018 (the Farm Bill).

USDA is hosting virtual listening sessions on a final rule that will be published this Fall.

• To register to attend the July 28 session at 2 p.m. EDT, visit: 

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5379245598321536014.

• To register to attend the July 30 session at 2 p.m. EDT, visit 

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2719620429219806478.

Comments on RISE program application requirements and project priorities may be submitted at 

www.regulations.gov. Additional information is available on page 44273 of the July 22 Federal Register.

USDA encourages applications that will support recommendations made in the Report to the President of the 

United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (PDF, 5.4 MB) to help improve life in 

rural America. Applicants are encouraged to consider projects that provide measurable results in helping rural 

communities build robust and sustainable economies through strategic investments in infrastructure, 

partnerships and innovation. Key strategies include:

• Achieving e-Connectivity for Rural America

• Developing the Rural Economy

• Harnessing Technological Innovation

• Supporting a Rural Workforce

• Improving Quality of Life

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
cc: Kenneth Friedman Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
### §5208. International cooperation

The President, as part of the Superconductivity Action Plan, shall establish a program of international cooperation in the conduct of fundamental and basic research on superconducting materials. Such program of international cooperation shall include the exchange of basic information and data, as well as the development of international standards for the use and application of superconducting materials.

(Pub. L. 100–697, §9, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4616.)
§ 154.2 Definitions. ( a ) Contract means any agreement which in any manner affects or relates to rates, charges, classifications, practices, rules, regulations, or services for any transportation or sale of natural gas subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. This term includes an executed service agreement.
( b ) FERC Gas Tariff or tariff means a compilation, on electronic media, of all of the effective rate schedules of a particular natural gas company, and a copy of each form of service agreement.
( c ) Form of service agreement means an unexecuted agreement for service included as an example in the tariff.
( d ) *Post means:* to make a copy of a natural gas company's tariff and contracts available during regular business hours for public inspection in a convenient form and place at the natural gas company's offices where business is conducted with affected customers; and, to serve each affected customer and interested state Commission in accordance with § 154.208 of this Part.
( e ) Rate schedule means a statement of a rate or charge for a particular classification of transportation or sale of natural gas subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, and all terms, conditions, classifications, practices, rules, and regulations affecting such rate or charge.
( f ) Filing date means the day on which a tariff, or part thereof, or a contract is received in the Office of the Secretary of the Commission for filing in compliance with the requirements of this part.
[Order 582, 60 FR 52996, Oct. 11, 1995, as amended by Order 714, 73 FR 57533, Oct. 3, 2008]
# C_2012331EN.01000501.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel d’Amiens — France) — European arrest warrant issued against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

(Case C-42/11) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4(6) - Ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Implementation in national law - Arrested person is a national of the issuing Member State - European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence - Legislation of a Member State restricting the power not to execute the European arrest warrant to cases where the requested persons are nationals of that State)

(2012/C 331/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel d’Amiens

Parties to the main proceedings

João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel d’Amiens — Interpretation of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) and Article 18 TFEU — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence — Legislation of a Member State restricting the option of non-execution of a European arrest warrant to cases in which the persons sought are nationals of that Member State — Discrimination based on nationality

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States and Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, although a Member State may, in transposing Article 4(6), decide to limit the situations in which an executing judicial authority may refuse to surrender a person who falls within the scope of that provision, it cannot automatically and absolutely exclude from its scope the nationals of other Member States staying or resident in its territory irrespective of their connections with it.

The national court is required, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, to interpret that law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Framework Decision 2002/584, with a view to ensuring that that framework decision is fully effective and to achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.

---
### §1053. Service marks registrable

Subject to the provisions relating to the registration of trademarks, so far as they are applicable, service marks shall be registrable, in the same manner and with the same effect as are trademarks, and when registered they shall be entitled to the protection provided in this chapter in the case of trademarks. Applications and procedure under this section shall conform as nearly as practicable to those prescribed for the registration of trademarks.

(July 5, 1946, ch. 540, title I, §3, 60 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 100–667, title I, §105, Nov. 16, 1988, 102 Stat. 3938; Pub. L. 106–43, §6(b), Aug. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 220.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–43 substituted "trademarks" for "trade-marks" wherever appearing.

1988—Pub. L. 100–667 struck out "used in commerce" after "applicable, service marks" and ", except when used so as to represent falsely that the owner thereof makes or sells the goods on which such mark is used. The Commissioner may establish a separate register for such service marks" after "case of trade-marks".

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

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–667 effective one year after Nov. 16, 1988, see section 136 of Pub. L. 100–667, set out as a note under section 1051 of this title.

#### Repeal and Effect on Existing Rights

Repeal of inconsistent provisions, effect of this chapter on pending proceedings and existing registrations and rights under prior acts, see notes set out under section 1051 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Commerce, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Commerce, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 5 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.28 Is technical assistance available to an Indian tribe or tribal organization to avoid declination of a proposal?

Yes. In accordance with section 103(d) of the Act, upon receiving a proposal, the Secretary shall provide any necessary requested technical assistance to an Indian tribe or tribal organization, and shall share all relevant information with the Indian tribe or tribal organization, in order to avoid declination of the proposal.
### §1001. Prize-fight films as subjects of interstate or foreign commerce

Every film or other pictorial representation of any prize fight or encounter of pugilists, under whatever name, transported into any State, Territory, or possession, for use, sale, storage, exhibition, or other disposition therein is divested of its character as a subject of interstate or foreign commerce to the extent that it shall upon crossing the boundary of such State, Territory, or possession, be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State, Territory, or possession enacted in the exercise of its police power.

(June 29, 1940, ch. 443, §1, 54 Stat. 686.)
### §278j. Studies by National Research Council

The Director may periodically contract with the National Research Council for advice and studies to assist the Institute to serve United States industry and science. The subjects of such advice and studies may include—

(1) the competitive position of the United States in key areas of manufacturing and emerging technologies and research activities which would enhance that competitiveness;

(2) potential activities of the Institute, in cooperation with industry and the States, to assist in the transfer and dissemination of new technologies for manufacturing and quality assurance; and

(3) identification and assessment of likely barriers to widespread use of advanced manufacturing technology by the United States workforce, including training and other initiatives which could lead to a higher percentage of manufacturing jobs of United States companies being located within the borders of our country.

(Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 872, §24, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5114(2), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1432.)