alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 29/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.029.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 29 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 535 February 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2010.029.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 29

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 535 February 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 029/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2010/C 029/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 2 |
| 2010/C 029/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5644 — Kraft Foods/Cadbury) (1) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 029/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2010/C 029/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

2

2010/C 029/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5644 — Kraft Foods/Cadbury) (1)

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 029/04 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2010/C 029/04

Euro exchange rates

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 029/05 | MEDIA 2007 — Development, Distribution Promotion and Training — Call for proposals — EACEA/01/10 — Training | 6 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2010/C 029/06 | Planned closure of complaint No 2009/2002 | 8 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2010/C 029/05

MEDIA 2007 — Development, Distribution Promotion and Training — Call for proposals — EACEA/01/10 — Training

6

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2010/C 029/06

Planned closure of complaint No 2009/2002

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
REVISED April 1, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10216

Summary Calendar

TERRY JAMES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

JUDGE DAVID C. GODBEY; MAGISTRATE JUDGE JEFF KAPLAN, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-4809

 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry James moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his 

appeal of the district court’s denial of permission to sue Judge David Godbey 

and Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan. Mr. James wished to file a suit alleging 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 27, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10216 Document: 00512988863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2015
No. 14-10216

that Judge Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan violated his constitutional 

rights by sanctioning him. The district court determined that his suit was 

frivolous, denied permission to sue, and further denied Mr. James’s application 

to proceed IFP on appeal. 

By moving for IFP status, Mr. James is challenging the district court’s 

certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). We agree with the district court that Mr. 

James’s appeal is not in good faith. “It is well established that judges enjoy 

absolute immunity for judicial acts performed in judicial proceedings,” Mays v. 

Sudderth, 97 F.3d 107, 110 (5th Cir. 1996), and Mr. James makes no argument 

that somehow judicial immunity should not apply here, see, e.g., Stump v. 

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (noting exception to judicial immunity 

for acting in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction”). As such, because Judge 

Godbey and Magistrate Judge Kaplan clearly enjoy absolute immunity, Mr. 

James’s suit is frivolous. 

Because Mr. James has not shown his appeal involves legal points 

arguable on their merits, we DENY permission for leave to proceed IFP, and 

the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See, e.g., Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & 

n.24; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-10216 Document: 00512988863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2015
§ 300.1 Purposes. The purposes of this part are— ( a ) To ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living;
( b ) To ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected;
( c ) To assist States, localities, educational service agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; and
( d ) To assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1400(d))
EX-10.1



 





Exhibit 10.1




CVR ENERGY, INC.

IPO EQUITY PLAN





          1. Name. This plan shall be known as the CVR Energy, Inc. IPO Equity Plan (the
“Plan”).




          2. Purpose. The Plan is intended to incentivize the work force of CVR Energy, Inc.
(the “Company”) and its subsidiaries in order to promote the growth and success of the
Company and its subsidiaries, to maintain a good relationship with the employees of the Company and
its subsidiaries and to align the financial interests of employees with those of the Company’s
equity holders by granting to certain employees of the Company and its subsidiaries shares of
common stock of the Company (the “Shares”). A maximum of 27,100 Shares are available for
grant under the Plan.




          3. Eligibility. Shares may be granted under the Plan to employees of the Company and
its subsidiaries who (i) do not currently have phantom points under the Coffeyville Resources, LLC
Phantom Unit Appreciation Plan (Plan I) or the Coffeyville Resources, LLC Phantom Unit Appreciation
Plan (Plan II), (ii) do not have override units issued under the limited liability company
agreements of Coffeyville Acquisition LLC, Coffeyville Acquisition II LLC, or Coffeyville
Acquisition III LLC and (iii) were employees of the Company or any of its subsidiaries as of
September 30, 2007 and continue to be employees of the Company or any of its subsidiaries on the
date of the pricing of the initial public offering of the Shares.




          4. Administration. The Plan shall be administered by the Company’s Vice President,
Human Resources (the “Administrator”). Subject to the express provisions of the Plan, the
Administrator shall have the discretion (i) to construe and interpret the Plan, (ii) to prescribe,
amend or rescind rules and regulations relating to the administration of the Plan and (iii) to make
all other determinations necessary or advisable for the administration of the Plan, including,
without limitation, who shall participate in the Plan and how many Shares will be granted to each
participant. Pursuant to the Plan, the Administrator is authorized to
arrange for the issuance of 50 shares to each of the Company’s and/or
its subsidiaries’ 542 employees (or to such employee’s estate, if
applicable) who meets these criteria.




          5. No Right to Continued Employment. Nothing in the Plan shall be construed to limit
in any way the right of the Company or any subsidiary to terminate the employment of any person at
any time.




          6. Amendment and Termination. The Board of Directors of the Company may, at any time,
suspend, amend or terminate the Plan; provided, however, that no suspension, amendment or
termination hereof shall amend, alter or impair any rights or obligations with respect to any
Shares previously granted under the Plan. Unless terminated earlier, this Plan shall terminate on
December 31, 2007.




 









 





Dated: October 16, 2007




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CVR ENERGY, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Jerry Reed	 
	 	 	Name:  	Jerry Reed 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President, Human Resources 	 
	 
	[Signature Page to CVR Energy, Inc. IPO Equity Plan]
#### Charles S. Cleaver *v.*James L. Webster.

*Practice—waiver of objection to order in which cause was called, for trial.*Where it appears that a case was called for trial, and the parties went to trial without objection, they will be held to have waived any objection as to the cause being called and tried out of its order.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gaby, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Springer & Corwin, for the appellant.

Messrs. Ewing & Leonard, for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice Walker

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is urged that the court below erred in taking up and try*608ing this case out of its order, and that the rule of court permitting a plaintiff to set a case for trial on a particular day, when his client shall file an affidavit that he believes the defense is made for delay, is prohibited by the constitution of 1870.

But appellant did not object, so far as this record discloses, to proceeding to trial at the time and in the manner it was had. It appears that the case was called, the attorneys on both sides appeared, but no objection was interposed to taking up the case out of its order, but they proceeded to and tried the case. Under such circumstances, we must presume the objection now sought to be raised was waived, and the trial had with the consent of defendant. It may be, and the presumption is, that, had defendant objected to taking the case up at that time, the court would not have required defendant to proceed to trial. To have raised the question, defendant should have objected, and, had it been disallowed, he should have excepted and preserved it in the record.

■ The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### C. Paulding Rhynus, Respondent, v. Dora H. Shaffer et al., Defendants, and David Schauben, Defendant-Appellant.

Present—Carswell, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 17968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7544]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated November 1, 2010, and published in the Federal 
Register on November 12, 2010, 75 FR 69460, GE Healthcare, 3350 North 
Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004-1412, made application 
by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be 
registered as an importer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of 
controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import small quantities of ioflupane, in the 
form of three separate analogues of Cocaine, to validate production and 
quality control systems, for a reference standard, and for producing 
material for a future investigational new drug (IND) submission.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the 
registration of GE Healthcare to import the basic class of controlled 
substance is consistent with the public interest and with United States 
obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in 
effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated GE Healthcare to ensure 
that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. 
The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's 
physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance 
with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and 
history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in 
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted 
registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance 
listed.

    Dated: March 21, 2011.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-7544 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
### §715k–5. Acquisition of lands

No land shall be acquired with moneys from the migratory bird conservation fund 1 unless the acquisition thereof has been approved by the Governor of the State or appropriate State agency.

(Pub. L. 87–383, §3, Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 813; Pub. L. 90–205, §1(b), Dec. 15, 1967, 81 Stat. 612; Pub. L. 94–215, §2(b), Feb. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 189; Pub. L. 98–200, §2, Dec. 2, 1983, 97 Stat. 1378; Pub. L. 98–548, title I, §102, Oct. 26, 1984, 98 Stat. 2774; Pub. L. 99–645, title I, §101(b), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3584.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act which comprises this subchapter.

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–645 struck out first three sentences which read as follows: "Funds appropriated pursuant to sections 715k–3 to 715k–5 of this title shall be treated as an advance, without interest, to the migratory bird conservation fund. Such appropriated funds, beginning on October 1, 1986, shall be repaid to the Treasury out of the migratory bird conservation fund, such repayment shall be made in annual amounts comprising 75 per centum of the moneys accruing annually to such fund. In the event the full amount authorized by section 715k–3 of this title is appropriated before October 1, 1986, the repayment of such funds pursuant to this section shall begin with the next full fiscal year."

1984—Pub. L. 98–548 substituted "October 1, 1986" for "October 1, 1984" in two places.

1983—Pub. L. 98–200 substituted "October 1, 1984" for "October 1, 1983" in two places.

1976—Pub. L. 94–215 substituted "on October 1, 1983" for "with fiscal year 1977", "before October 1, 1983" for "prior to the end of the aforesaid fifteen-year period" and "year. No" for "year: Provided further, That no".

1967—Pub. L. 90–205 made minor structural changes and substituted "1977" for "1969" and "fifteen-year period" for "seven-year period".

1 So in original. Probably should be capitalized.
§ 303.721 Annual report of children served—report requirement. ( a ) For the purposes of the annual report required by section 618 of the Act and § 303.720, the lead agency must count and report the number of infants and toddlers receiving early intervention services on any date between October 1 and December 1 of each year. The report must include— ( 1 ) The number and percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities in the State, by race, gender, and ethnicity, who are receiving early intervention services (and include in this number any children reported to it by tribes, tribal organizations, and consortia under § 303.731(e)(1));
( 2 ) The number and percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities, by race, gender, and ethnicity, who, from birth through age two, stopped receiving early intervention services because of program completion or for other reasons; and
( 3 ) The number and percentage of at-risk infants and toddlers (as defined in section 632(1) of the Act), by race and ethnicity, who are receiving early intervention services under part C of the Act.
( b ) If a State adopts the option under section 635(c) of the Act and § 303.211 to make services under this part available to children ages three and older, the State must submit to the Secretary a report on the number and percentage of children with disabilities who are eligible for services under section 619 of the Act but whose parents choose for those children to continue to receive early intervention services.
( c ) The number of due process complaints filed under section 615 of the Act, the number of hearings conducted and the number of mediations held, and the number of settlement agreements reached through such mediations.
(Approved by Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0557) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1418(a)(1)(B), (C), (F), (G), and (H), 1435(a)(14), 1435(c)(3), 1442)
### §824u. Prohibition on filing false information

No entity (including an entity described in section 824(f) of this title) shall willfully and knowingly report any information relating to the price of electricity sold at wholesale or the availability of transmission capacity, which information the person or any other entity knew to be false at the time of the reporting, to a Federal agency with intent to fraudulently affect the data being compiled by the Federal agency.

(June 10, 1920, ch. 285, pt. II, §221, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title XII, §1282, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 979.)
April 2003 CVC Water Delivery Records

Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Green indicates Actual Delivery Data

Red indicates Scheduled Data Blue indicates Actual Data Deliveries on Behalf of CVC Contractors (75% Allocation)

Apr 

2003

Scheduled 

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Banks 

AF

Scheduled 

Article 55 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Banks 

AF

Scheduled 

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Tracy 

AF

Actual 

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Banks 

AF

Actual 

Article 55 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Banks 

AF

Actual 

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Tracy 

AF

Actual 

CVC 

Water 

Pumped 

@ Dos 

Amigos for 

Delivery 

AF

3% Loss 

Between 

Banks and 

O'Neill 

Based on 

Actual 

Pumping

Hills Valley 

via 

Arvin Edison 

242 AF

4/1/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/2/2003 0 AF 0 AF 100 AF 0 AF 0 AF 100 AF 101 AF 0 AF 18 AF

4/3/2003 0 AF 0 AF 100 AF 0 AF 0 AF 100 AF 101 AF 0 AF 18 AF

4/4/2003 0 AF 0 AF 298 AF 0 AF 0 AF 298 AF 297 AF 0 AF 18 AF

4/5/2003 0 AF 0 AF 298 AF 0 AF 0 AF 298 AF 297 AF 0 AF 18 AF

4/6/2003 0 AF 0 AF 298 AF 0 AF 0 AF 298 AF 297 AF 0 AF 18 AF

4/7/2003 0 AF 0 AF 298 AF 0 AF 0 AF 298 AF 297 AF 0 AF 19 AF

4/8/2003 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 138 AF 0 AF 19 AF

4/9/2003 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 138 AF 0 AF 19 AF

4/10/2003 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 138 AF 0 AF 19 AF

4/11/2003 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 138 AF 0 AF 19 AF

4/12/2003 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 138 AF 0 AF 19 AF

4/13/2003 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 138 AF 0 AF 19 AF

4/14/2003 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 0 AF 0 AF 139 AF 138 AF 0 AF 19 AF

4/15/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/16/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF Completed

4/17/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF in

4/18/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF April 2003

4/19/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/20/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/21/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/22/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/23/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/24/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/25/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/26/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/27/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/28/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

4/29/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF Completed

4/30/2003 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF in

April 2003

Apr Total 0 AF 0 AF 2,365 AF 0 AF 0 AF 2,365 AF 2,356 AF 0 AF 242 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF 0 AF

Notes: 2,114 AF that was pumped at Dos Amigos in April 2003 will show being delivered in May 2003 per agreement with KCWA, DWR & USBR.

h:\data\public\~water\~smith\CVC\2003\2003 CVC Deliveries.xls 9/4/2003 11:00 AM
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 MANUEL TRUJILLO , 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8
v. NO. 31,239 9 CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE , 10 Defendant-Appellee. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 12 Carl J. Butkus, District Judge 13 Manuel Trujillo 14 Albuquerque, NM 15 Pro Se Appellant 16 Robert D. Kidd, Jr., Interim City Attorney 17 Sarah E. Lough, Assistant City Attorney 18 Albuquerque, NM 19 for Appellee 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 VANZI, Judge. 22 Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his complaint under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA. 23 We proposed to affirm in a calendar noti ce, and we have received a memorandum in 242 opposition and a memorandum in support in response to our notice. We have duly 1 considered Plaintiff’s arguments, but we find them unpersuasive. We affirm. 2 As noted in our calendar notice, a Ru le 1-012(B)(6) motion will be upheld if, 3 under any state of facts provable under the clai m, the plaintiff cannot recover or obtain 4 relief. Valdez v. State , 2002-NMSC-028, ¶ 4, 132 N.M. 667, 54 P.3d 71. Plaintiff’s 5 complaint is titled, “Civil Complaint Discri mination,” and asks for 1.5 billion dollars 6 from Defendant. Plaintiff states that the claims arise from “numerous discrimination 7 charges from” two metropolitan court cases. [RP 9] An attachment to the complaint 8 lists vandalism, seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal stop, failure to 9 transport, excessive bail, and “not givi ng me back my money.” [RP 10-11] The 10 complaint does not include any allegations of discrimination. Plaintiff includes no 11 facts that would support a discrimination claim upon which relief could be granted. 12 Plaintiff provides no facts or authority to support what appears to be a claim that he 13 was the target of discrimination or to support his claim that he is entitled to 1.5 billion 14 dollars as a result. 15 Accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, 16 it is clear that Plaintiff cannot recover under any state of facts that are provable under 173 his complaint. See Valdez , 2002-NMSC-028, ¶ 4. For th e reasons discussed in this 1 opinion and in our calendar notice, we affirm the decision of the district court. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

__________________________________ 4 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 5
WE CONCUR: 6

_________________________________ 7 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 8

_________________________________ 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 10