alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023080EN.01004801.xml

| 3.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/48

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/457, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/449 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

(2023/C 80/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/457 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/449 (4) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, before 10 December 2023 to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

(2)  OJ L 67, 3.3.2023, p. 47.

(3)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 67, 3.3.2023, p. 1.

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10934

Summary Calendar

 

RONALD REGAN HARRISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID WILLIAMS, Tarrant County Sheriff, Et Al.,

Defendants,

DR. EDGEWORTH, Tarrant County Health District,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CV-49-E

- - - - - - - - - -

June 11, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Regan Harrison, Texas prisoner # 571382, appeals the

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. David

Edgeworth and the dismissal of his claims as frivolous against the

other defendants. Harrison argues that Dr. Edgeworth acted with

deliberate indifference to Harrison’s serious medical needs and
No. 97-10934

-2-

that defendants David Williams and Mae Pasquet should be held

responsible respectively for their supervision of the Tarrant

County Jail’s medical department and of those individuals who

subcontract with the Tarrant County Jail to handle medical

problems.

Our review of the record reveals that there is no genuine

issue of material fact demonstrating that Dr. Edgeworth knew of a

substantial risk of serious medical harm and failed to take

reasonable measures to abate it. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74

F.3d 633, 648-49 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). Furthermore, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

Harrison’s claims against Pasquet and Williams, who were sued in

their supervisory roles. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191,

193 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-

04 (5th Cir. 1987). 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
M. Noel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

By: /s/ David M. Noel
---------------------
David M. Noel
Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer

May 12, 2004
#### HARRIS v. GLAND-O-LAC CO.

No. 11913.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 19, 1954.

Robert J. Harris, Thorndyke & Becker, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

Henry B. Street, Curt E. Stern, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed his suit in the district court against appellee company, a resident of a foreign state, and caused service of summons to be made upon Joseph Tenge, an agent of appellee company. Appellee moved to quash service on the ground that, under the provisions of Rule 4(d) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., Tenge was not a person upon whom valid service, binding on appellee, could be made; and the issue in this case is reduced to a determination of the question whether Tenge was a managing agent of appel-lee company at the time of the service of summons upon him. The motion was heard in the district court upon the affidavits of appellant and of Tenge; and the district court granted the motion to quash. The uncontroverted proofs submitted by the above-mentioned affidavits disclosed that Tenge was only a salesman, without managerial duties, and that none of his activities resulted in his being a managing agent of appellee company.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.152 Tests of air flow; qualified person.

A person is a qualified person within the meaning of the provisions of Subpart D—Ventilation of this part requiring that tests of air flow be made by a qualified person only if he is a certified person under § 75.100 or a person trained and designated by a certified person to perform such tests.
### §§1471 to 1476. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1471, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, §301, 69 Stat. 588, which related to definitions, was transferred to section 1973cc–21 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Section 1472, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, §302, 69 Stat. 588, which related to free postage, was transferred to section 1973cc–22 of Title 42.

Section 1473, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, §303, 69 Stat. 588, which related to prevention of fraud and coercion, was transferred to section 1973cc–23 of Title 42.

Section 1474, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, §304, 69 Stat. 589, which related to acts done in good faith, was transferred to section 1973cc–24 of Title 42.

Section 1475, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, §305, 69 Stat. 589, which related to undue influence and free discussion, was transferred to section 1973cc–25 of Title 42.

Section 1476, act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 656, title III, §308, 69 Stat. 589, which authorized appropriations, was transferred to section 1973cc–26 of Title 42.

Sections 1471 to 1476 were formerly classified to sections 2191 to 2196 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
§ 583.310 What process does BOEM use to technically and environmentally evaluate a qualified project? ( a ) Once BOEM has determined a project qualifies for an agreement, BOEM will begin the project evaluation process to decide whether to enter into a negotiated noncompetitive agreement.
( b ) BOEM will coordinate with relevant Federal agencies, State, and local governments and any potentially affected federally recognized Indian tribes or Alaska Native Corporations in the project evaluation.
( c ) BOEM will evaluate the project and additional information provided pursuant to §§ 583.300 and 583.305, to determine if the information is sufficient to conduct necessary technical and environmental reviews to comply with the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations, which may include, but are not limited to: OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1331 *et seq.*), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.*), the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.*), the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 *et seq.*), the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.*), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C. 300101 *et seq.*), and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1451 *et seq.*).
( d ) BOEM will not enter into a negotiated noncompetitive agreement with the applicant until the information requested for the evaluation has been provided and BOEM has evaluated it.
Order entered April 6, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00013-CR

LEON BARNES III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. M20-22544-L

ORDER

On April 1, 2022, appellant provided written verification that he mailed 

payment for the reporter’s record on March 4, 2022. In light of this, we GRANT

court reporter Viviana Figueroa’s February 25, 2022 request for additional time

and ORDER the reporter’s record in this appeal filed by May 2, 2022.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
#### PEREZ *vs.*THE STATE.

[indictment under section 3625 OF revised code foe knowingly suffering A GAME TOTH CARDS TO BE PLAYED, &C.]

1, *Section*3625 *of Revised Code, indictment under; when bad on demurrer or appeal.*—An indictment under section 3625 of the Revised Code, for knowingly suffering a game with cards to be played at, or in, the places named in said section, or in a “highway or some other place ” not named ip. said section, is fatally defective, either on demurrer or on appeal.

Appeal from the City Court of Mobile.

Tried before Hon, C. F. Moulton.

The indictment in this case, which was properly endorsed and returned into court, charged that, before the finding thereof, “ Constantine Perez, being the proprietor of a tavern, inn, storehouse for retailing spirituous liquors, or house or place where spirituous liquor was at the-time retailed or given away, or at a public house, highway or some other public place, or at an outhouse where people resorted, knowingly suffered a game with cards to be played at such house or place, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.”

No demurrer was interposed to the indictment, but appellant went to trial on a plea of not guilty, was convicted and fined one hundred dollars.

No exceptions were reserved, and the appeal is taken on the record alone.

*357Turner, for appellant.

John W. A. Sanford, Attorney-General, *contra.*

PECK, C. J.

The indictment in this case was, as we suppose, intended to be framed under § 3625 of Rev. Code. We know of no other section to which it can be referred; and it is clearly bad, as an indictment under that- section. That section declares it to be an offense for any person, being the keeper, proprietor, owner, or superintendent of any tavern, inn, or other public house, or any house where spirituous liquors are sold, retailed, or given away, or of any outhouse where people resort, who knowingly suffers any of the offenses prohibited by the five preceding sections to be committed in his house, or on his premises. Manifestly, the house or premises in, or on, which it may be charged the prohibited offense was knowingly suffered to be committed, must be “ *his house, or his premises,”*in such sense as gave to the person being the keeper, proprietor, owner, or superintendent thereof, the legal right to have interposed, and prevented the commission of said alleged offense in said house, or on said premises. Now, this indictment charges the appellant with knowingly suffering one of the prohibited offenses tó be committed in one or the other of the plans named in said section, *or in a highway, or some other public place,*not named in said section.

Such an indictment is bad, either on demurrer or on appeal. If held to be a good indictment, a person might be convicted and punished for an act, or an alleged omission of a duty, not declared to be an offense by said section, to-wit: for suffering ope of the said prohibited offenses to be committed in a highway or some other public place.

Let the judgment of the court below be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
#### D. Mordecai Greenberg, as Executor of Laura Bisig, Deceased, Appellant, v. Anna B. Wetzel, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. (Appeal by plaintiff from order of Monroe Special Term denying motion to punish defendant for contempt and granting defendant’s cross motion to open the default judgment.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
----

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

|   | GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.                            |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) |   |

|   | State of Alaska                                                |   | 0-15279                |   | 92-0072737                         |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (State or other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or organization) |   | Commission File Number |   | (I.R.S EmployerIdentification No.) |   |

|   | 2550 Denali Street                       |   |       |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|------------|--------|
|   | Suite 1000                               |   |       |   |
|   | Anchorage, Alaska                        |   | 99503      |   |
|   | (Address of principal executive offices) |   | (Zip Code) |   |

|   | NONE                                                          |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | (Former name or former address, if changed since last report) |   |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

|   | SIGNATURES |
|--------|------------|

|               |   |   | GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.              |
|--------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|               |   |   | (Registrant)                             |
|               |   |   |                                     |
| Date: May 10, 2011 |   |   |                                     |
|               |   |   |                                     |
|               |   | By     |   /s/ John M. Lowber                |
|               |   |   | Name: John M. Lowber                     |
|               |   |   | Title:  Senior Vice President, |
|               |   |   | Chief Financial Officer,                 |
|               |   |   | Secretary and Treasurer                  |
|               |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)            |

----

----
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1


# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued August 7, 2013 Decided August 9, 2013



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Chief Judge

D ANIEL A. M ANION , Circuit Judge

M ICHAEL S. K ANNE , Circuit Judge

No. 12

- 3218

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v

. J OSE L UIS M ACIEL , Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 10 CR 652 Amy J. St. Eve

, Judge

.

Order

Jose Luis Maciel was sentenced to 188 months’ imprisonment after a jury convicted him of distributing cocaine and related offenses. This is the low point of the 188 to 235 month range the district court calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines. Maciel’s sole appellate argument is that the district judge should have treated him as a minor partic ipant in the offense, which would have reduced his offense level. U.S.S.G. §3B1.2. He did not request this reduction in the district court, however, and the judge d id not commit plain error by deciding not to raise the possibility herself.

A reduction under §3B1.2 depends on a conclusion that the defendant is substantia lly less culpable than the average participant in the offense. See United States v. Leiskunas

, 656 F.3d 732, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). Maciel was a major

- league courier . The evidence at tr ial documented his delivery of 20 kilograms of cocaine on one occasion and 45 kilos on another. He was a long

- distance truck driver who added drugs to the manifest of legi t-No. 12

- 3218 Page 2

imate cargo, receiving $2,000 for his services after each delivery. Evidence in the record shows that he dealt directly with the top of an organized drug

- distribution network and transported cocaine regularly; the prosecutor’s decision to stop with proof of two ep isodes does not imply that these were the limit of his responsibility

.

C ouriers have received reductions under §3B1.2 when the evidence shows that they were bit players. The situation of Victor Diaz

- Rios , to whom Maciel delivered the 45

- kilo shipment, illustrates. We concluded that Diaz

- Rios was eligible for a reduction (though not necessarily entitled to it) because that delivery was a one

- off deal for him, and he did not know the type or quantity of drugs he received. United States v. Diaz

R ios , 706 F.3d 795 (7th Cir. 2013). Maciel was a regular, was trusted with million

- dollar cargos, and knew exactly what he was carrying. If he had requested a reduction under §3B1.2, the district judge would have been entitled to say no, for these and other re asons. See, e.g., United States v. Saenz , 623 F.3d 461, 468 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Gonzales , 534 F.3d 613, 617 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Mendoza , 457 F.3d 726, 729

– 30 (7th Cir. 2006). It follows that the district judge did not commit plain error when she a ccepted the presentence report’s calculation, in the absence of any request by the defen dant for a reduction under §3B1.2.

A FFIRMED
#### § 77.1438 End attachment replacement.

Wire rope attachments shall be replaced when cracked, deformed, or excessively worn.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > U.S. Working Women: A Databook

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*U.S. Working Women: A Databook : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1977*,										1977,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/242,			accessed on September 21, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 56.4130 Electric substations and liquid storage facilities. ( a ) If a hazard to persons could be created, no combustible materials shall be stored or allowed to accumulate within 25 feet of the following: ( 1 ) Electric substations.
( 2 ) Unburied, flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks.
( 3 ) Any group of containers used for storage of more than 60 gallons of flammable or combustible liquids.
( b ) The area within the 25-foot perimeter shall be kept free of dry vegetation.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 USC SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: November 9, 2007

/s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.Anthony F. Earley, Jr.Chairman and Chief Executive 
Officer of The
Detroit Edison Company