alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Euroopa Liidu C 249I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 249I |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 63. aastakäik29. juuli 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 249I

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

63. aastakäik29. juuli 2020

---

| Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Nõukogu |
| 2020/C 249 I/01 | Eurojusti töökorra muudatuste vastuvõtmine | 1 |

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Nõukogu

2020/C 249 I/01

Eurojusti töökorra muudatuste vastuvõtmine

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Nõukogu

| 29.7.2020 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CI 249/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2020

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CI 249/1

---

Eurojusti töökorra muudatuste vastuvõtmine

(2020/C 249 I/01)

Eurojusti kolleegium võttis 24. juulil 2020 vastu Eurojusti töökorra muudatused (1). Kõnealused muudatused on lisatud nõukogu 23. juuli 2020. aasta rakendusotsusele (EL) 2020/1114 (2).

Eurojusti kolleegiumi nimel

Eurojusti president

Ladislav HAMRAN

---

(1)  Heaks kiidetud nõukogu 19. detsembri 2019. aasta rakendusotsusega (EL) 2019/2250 (ELT L 336, 30.12.2019, lk 309) ja vastu võetud kolleegiumi poolt 20. detsembril 2019 (ELT L 50, 24.2.2020, lk 1).

1

(2)  ELT L 244, 29.7.2020, lk 13

2

---
§ 3400.1 Multiple development. ( a ) The granting of an exploration license, a license to mine or a lease for the exploration, development, or production of coal deposits shall preclude neither the issuance of prospecting permits or mineral leases for prospecting, development or production of deposits of other minerals in the same land with suitable stipulations for simultaneous operation, nor the allowance of applicable entries, locations, or selections of leased lands with a reservation of the mineral deposits to the United States.
( b ) The presence of deposits of other minerals or the issuance of prospecting permits or mineral leases for prospecting, development or production of deposits of other minerals shall not preclude the granting of an exploration license, a license to mine or a lease for the exploration, development or production of coal deposits on the same lands with suitable stipulations for simultaneous operations.
[44 FR 42609, July 19, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 33134, July 30, 1982]
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements (No. 333-84304 and No. 333-157029) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-64346, No. 333-134583, No. 333-139968, and No. 333-154959) on Form S-8 of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated March 1,
2007, with respect to the consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006, which report appears in the
December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. Our report refers to the Companys adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based Payment, on January 1, 2006.



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/    KPMG LLP  
|Norfolk, Virginia
|March 27, 2009
#### Patricia Hardy, an Infant, by Mary E. Hardy, Her Guardian ad Litem,. Respondent, v. Kenneth G. Fish, Appellant.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
#### § 3503.37 Is there a limit to the acreage of lands I can hold under permits and leases?

Yes. The limits are summarized in the following table:

| Commodity | Maximum acreage for a permit or lease | Maximum acreage of permits and leases in any one State | Maximum acreage in permits and leases nationwide |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (a) Phosphate | 2,560 acres | None | 20,480 acres. |
| (b) Sodium | 2,560 acres | 5,120 acres (may be increased to 30,720 acres to facilitate an economic mine) | None. |
| (c) Potassium | 2,560 acres | 96,000 acres (larger if necessary for extraction of potassium from concentrated brines in connection with an existing mining operation) | None. |
| (d) Sulphur | 640 acres | 1,920 acres in 3 leases or permits | None. |
| (e) Gilsonite | 5,120 acres | 7,680 acres | None. |
| (f) Hardrock Minerals | 2,560 acres | 20,480 acres in permits and leases, 10,240 acres in leases, but can be increased to 20,480 if needed for orderly mine development | None. |
| (g) Asphalt | 640 acres | 2,560 acres | Only available in Oklahoma. |

[64 FR 53536, Oct. 1, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 50449, Aug. 18, 2000]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bradley Lanier CALDWELL, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-4869.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 31, 2006.

Decided March 6, 2006.

*806Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert Michael Hamilton, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Lanier Caldwell appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment. Caldwell’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), representing that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Caldwell has been notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

We review the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release and imposing a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. *See, e.g., United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). The conduct upon which the revocation was based included illegal drug use, a Grade B violation. *See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines*§ 7Bl.l(a)(2) (2004). Caldwell’s criminal history level was V. Combining these two factors, the district court correctly determined Caldwell’s sentencing range was eighteen to twenty-four months. *See*USSG § 7B1.4(a).

The sentence imposed by the district court was within both the statutory and guideline range. Caldwell admitted to testing positive for cocaine on eight occasions as well as other supervised release violations. The district court gave Caldwell a choice of sentences and he selected the twenty-four month sentence because it included a drug treatment program. The sentence was reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing it.

Pursuant to *Anders,*we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Caldwell’s sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2006 (the “Report”) ofImmucor, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
| April 6, 2006 |                    |
|---------------|-------------------------|
|          | /s/ Edward L. Gallup    |   |
|          | Edward L. Gallup        |
|          | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
§ 3903.30 Where to submit payments. ( a ) All filing and processing fees, all first-year rentals, and all bonuses for leases issued under this part or parts 3910 through 3930 of this chapter must be paid to the BLM state office that manages the lands covered by the application, lease, or exploration license, unless the BLM designates a different state office. The first one-fifth bonus installment is paid to the appropriate BLM state office. All remaining bonus installment payments are paid to the MMS.
( b ) All second-year and subsequent rentals and all other payments for leases are paid to the MMS.
( c ) All royalties on producing leases and all payments under leases in their minimum production period are paid to the MMS.
#### § 3582.0-3 Authority.

Authority for leasing mineral deposits within certain national recreation areas administered by the National Park Service is found in § 3500.0-3(c)(3) of this title.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00596-CV

IN RE ON THE MOVE, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice 

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 31, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 16, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court has 

considered relator’s petition and has determined that relator has failed to establish it lacks an 

adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 

2004) (orig. proceeding) (holding that to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must establish it 

lacks an adequate remedy by appeal). Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CI-06211, On the Move, Inc. v. Donald Frank Ederer, et al., 

pending in the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Karen Pozza presiding. However, 

the order complained of was signed by the Honorable Michael Peden, visiting judge, Bexar County, Texas.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00285-CR

__________________

KATHRYN ZIEHL BROADWAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 21-05-07184-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a criminal case, Kathryn Ziehl Broadway filed a “Public and Judicial Notice 

of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to 28 USCS § 1333 in the United States District 

Court by Savings to Suitor Claiming Lawful Right to Common Law Venue –

Demanding Proof of Jurisdiction in the Record.” We questioned our jurisdiction. In 

response, the State informs the Court that Broadway has not been convicted. In her 

response, without citing authority for an interlocutory appeal Broadway argues an 
2

appeal is necessary because after being challenged the trial court has failed to 

establish proof of jurisdiction. 

In criminal cases, “[t]he standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether 

the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott 

v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The general right to appeal 

under article 44.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to appeal 

from a final judgment. Id. at 697 n.8; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.02.

Broadway identifies no other state statute that authorizes an appeal at this time. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on October 26, 2021

Opinion Delivered October 27, 2021

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
4

(All Programs)

BOOKS. RECORDS AND REPORTS

The Contractor shall establish and maintain accounts and other books and

records pertaining to administration of the terms and conditions of this contract,

including: the Contractor’s financial transactions, water supply data, Project operation,

maintenance and replacement logs, and Project land and right-of-way use agreements;

the water users’ land-use (crop census), landownership, land-leasing and water-use data;

and other matters that the Contracting Officer may require. Reports thereon shall be

furnished to the Contracting Officer in such form and on such date or dates as the

Contracting Officer may require. Subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations,

each party to this contract shall have the right during office hours to examine and make

copies of the other party’s books and records relating to matters covered by this contract.

Approved 2/22/71; Revised 11/84

Note: The above provision should be modified as necessary to eliminate those records

and reports not specifically required due to the type of contract being executed.

M.3
#### § 4.1385 Time for initial decision.

The administrative law judge shall issue an initial decision within 30 days of the date the record of the hearing is closed, or, if no hearing is held, within 30 days of the deadline for filing responses under § 4.1382(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:20-cv-60855

BENJAMIN DEMONSTRANTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

FROST-ARNETT COMPANY,

and ASCENT MEDICAL GROUP,

LLC

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANT, ASCENT MEDICAL GROUP, LLC’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPROPRIATE DISMISSAL PAPERS

Defendant, ASCENT MEDICAL GROUP, LLC (“Ascent”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) and S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1, respectfully moves, without 

opposition, for an extension of time in which to file the appropriate dismissal papers in this matter

and states as follows:

1. On July 21, 2020, Plaintiff, BENJAMIN DEMONSTRANTI filed a Notice of 

Pending Settlement, and on July 23, 2020, the Court issued an Order [D.E. 28] to the parties to file 

appropriate dismissal papers with the Court no later than August 24, 2020.

2. Currently, two of the three parties have executed the Confidential Settlement

Agreement, and the parties and their counsel are working to comply with its terms so that the 

appropriate dismissal papers can be executed.

3. Due to the recent pandemic of COVID-19 requiring offices and the parties to work 

remotely as well as pre-planned vacations of counsel, the undersigned counsel respectfully 

requests an additional ten (10) days, through and including Thursday, September 3, 2020, to file

the appropriate dismissal papers with the Court.

Case 0:20-cv-60855-RS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

4. In accordance with S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1.A.3, the undersigned certifies that he has 

conferred with counsel for the Plaintiff with regard to this Motion and the additional time that is 

being requested. Counsel for Plaintiff confirmed that he has no opposition to the relief requested.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, ASCENT MEDICAL GROUP, LLC respectfully requests that 

this Court enter an Order granting its Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file the 

appropriate dismissal papers with the Court through and including September 3, 2020, and grant 

any additional relief as is just, equitable and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 24, 2020, a true copy of the following was e-filed 

and served through the Electronic Case Filing System (CM / ECF) upon Counsel for Plaintiff, 

Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq., jibrael@jibraellaw.com; and Thomas J. Patti, Esq., (tom@jibraellaw.com) 

Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi, PLLC, 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1700, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

33301

GUNSTER, YOAKLEY & SMITH, P.A.

450 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Telephone: (954) 462-2000

By: /s Eric C. Edison, Esq. 

Glenn J. Waldman

Florida Bar No. 374113

Email: Gwaldman@gunster.com

Eric C. Edison, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 10379

Email: Eedison@gunster.com

Case 0:20-cv-60855-RS Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/24/2020 Page 2 of 2
### PART V—INTERNATIONAL BOYCOTT DETERMINATIONS

Sec.
999.
Reports by taxpayers; determinations.
[1000.
Reserved.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title X, §1064(a), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1650, added part heading and analysis of sections.
C HIEF J USTICE

C AROLYN W RIGHT

J USTICES

D AVID L. B RIDGES

M OLLY F RANCIS

D OUGLAS S. L ANG

E LIZABETH L ANG

- M IERS

R OBERT M. F ILLMORE

L

ANA M YERS

D AVID E VANS

D AVID L EWIS

A DA B ROW N

C RAIG S TODDART

B ILL W HITEHILL

D AVID J. S CHENCK 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

600 C OMMERCE S TREET

, S UITE 200

D ALLAS

, T EXAS 75202

(214) 712

- 3400 L ISA M ATZ

CLERK OF THE COURT

(214) 712

- 3450

lisa.matz@ 5th.txcourts.gov

G AYLE H UMPA

BUSINESS ADMINISTRAT OR

(214) 712

- 3434

gayle.humpa@ 5th.txcourts.gov

F ACSIMILE

(214) 745

- 1083

I NTERNET

HTTP :// 5 TH

. TXCOURTS

. GOV



## August 31 , 2015

Katherine Drew

Dallas County Public Defender’s Office

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB

- 2

Dallas, TX 75207 Lori Ordiway

Dallas County District Attorney’s Office

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB

- 19

Dallas, TX 75207

RE: 05

- 15

- 01022

- CR

Lauro Arizpe v. The State of Texas

Counsel:

The Court has reviewed appellant’s jurisdictional letter brief and the document attached. It

appears we have jurisdiction over the appeal. See T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P . 9.2(b)(1), 26.2(a)(1).

The clerk’s and reporter’s records are due by Monday, September 8, 2015. See T EX



## . R. A PP



## . P. 35.2(a).

Sincerely,

/s/ Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

cc: Feli cia Pitre, Dallas County District Clerk

Crystal Jones, Official Court Reporter, Criminal District Court

ltr:mrh
§ 35.7 Complaint. ( a ) On or after the date the Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), the reviewing official may serve a complaint on the defendant, as provided in § 35.8 of this part.
( b ) The complaint shall state— ( 1 ) The allegations of liability against the defendant, including the statutory basis for liability, an identification of the claims or statements that are the basis for the alleged liability, and the reasons why liability allegedly arises from such claims or statements;
( 2 ) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which the defendant may be held liable;
( 3 ) Instructions for filing an answer to request a hearing, including a specific statement of the defendant's right to request a hearing by filing an answer and to be represented by a representative; and
( 4 ) That failure to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint will result in the imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments without right to appeal, as provided in § 35.10.
( c ) At the same time the reviewing official serves the complaint, he or she shall serve the defendant with a copy of these regulations.
CVPCP FY11 Projects, 6/8/2015

Project Proposed Activity Funding

A-2

Kelsey Ranch Conservation 

Easement

Trust for Public Lands

The project is acquisition of a 2,977-

acre conservation easement on the 

Kelsey Ranch in Merced County. 

Species to potentially benefit include 

CA tiger salamander, vernal pool fairy 

shrimp, Hartweg’s golden sunburst, and 

succulent owl’s clover. Merced County

-$718,343

(As of 

10/29/2014: The 

project was 

terminated due 

to lack of 

sufficient 

progress per the 

terms of the 

Grant 

Agreement. 

Funds were 

deobligated and 

applied towards 

FY 2015 

projects.)

(HRP was to 

provide $281,657 

for a total of 

$1,000,000)

R-1

Serpentine Soils Grazing 

Implementation for Santa 

Teresa County Park

County of Santa Clara

The project will involve installation of 

grazing infrastructure (fencing, water 

troughs, water tanks, etc.) to 

reintroduce cattle grazing to Santa 

Teresa County Park for the 

management and enhancement of 

serpentine grasslands and associated 

species in Santa Clara County. 

Species to potentially benefit include 

bay checkerspot butterfly, most 

beautiful jewelflower, fragrant fritillary, 

and Santa Clara Valley dudleya. Santa 

Clara County

$531,700

(HRP is 

providing 

$224,057. Also, 

$34,300 in funds 

from the Fresno 

Office (Ansin 

deob) were 

added for a total 

of $790,057 from 

all 3 funds)

R-4

Riparian Restoration on the 

San Joaquin River National 

Wildlife Refuge – Riparian 

Brush Rabbit Refugia 

(Phase II)

River Partners

The main project objective is to restore 

native vegetation on uplands to provide 

flood refugia and improve habitat for 

priority species, including riparian brush 

rabbit and riparian woodrat in 

Stanislaus County. The project will 

involve vegetating 4.5 acres of natural 

high ground habitat (Lara Field).

Stanislaus County

$136,521
Project Proposed Activity Funding

O-1

Controlled Propagation, 

Reintroduction, and 

Monitoring of Riparian Brush 

Rabbits on the SJRNWR 

and Adjacent Lands

CSU Stanislaus, ESRP

The primary goal of the project will be to 

complete the controlled propagation 

and reintroduction of riparian brush 

rabbits on the San Joaquin River NWR 

and adjacent lands. The project will 

take place in Stanislaus and San 

Joaquin Counties.

$390,673

 

Project Costs Totals $1,777,237

Program Administration & 

Overhead Costs Total

$338,142

Deobligation -$718,343

Total Budget $1,397,036