alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134804 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134804 

 COA: 278677 

Hillsdale CC: 06-301070 

DEWAYNE ALLEN HEARN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NIA ANDALIA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71657

Agency No. A098-824-913

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Nia Andalia, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

JUN 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71657

substantial evidence factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the threats to Andalia’s

family did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Mendez-Gutierrez v.

Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 865, 870 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003) (“unspecified threats” received by

Mexican national not “sufficiently menacing to constitute past persecution”). In

addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that Andalia has demonstrated

a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F. 3d 1012,

1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (petitioner’s claims “too speculative to be credited as a basis

for fear of future persecution”). Accordingly, Andalia failed to establish eligibility

for asylum. 

Further, because Andalia failed to meet the lower burden of proof for

asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### §20161. Congressional declaration of purpose and policy

(a) Purpose.—The purpose of this subchapter is to authorize and direct the Administration to develop and carry out a comprehensive program of research, technology, and monitoring of the phenomena of the upper atmosphere so as to provide for an understanding of and to maintain the chemical and physical integrity of the Earth's upper atmosphere.

(b) Policy.—Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to undertake an immediate and appropriate research, technology, and monitoring program that will provide for understanding the physics and chemistry of the Earth's upper atmosphere.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3354.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20161 | 42 U.S.C. 2481. | Pub. L. 85–568, title IV, §401, as added Pub. L. 94–39, §8, June 19, 1975, 89 Stat. 222. |

Section
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 83897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28294]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XA729]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) 
Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel (NTAP) will hold a public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 14, 2021, from 10 
a.m. to 3 p.m. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar, which can be accessed 
at: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/ntap_jan_2021/. Meeting audio can 
also be accessed via telephone by dialing 1-800-832-0736 and entering 
room number 5068609.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331; 
www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is for the 
Advisory Panel to (1) review the NTAP charter, (2) recap use of 
chainsweep efficiency work, (3) recap use of swept area in assessments, 
(4) recap the NTAP research priorities vote, (5) document and discuss 
concerns with NEFSC Bottom Trawl Survey, (6) discuss ways to address 
concerns with NEFCS Bottom Trawl Survey, (7) develop a list of NTAP 
research priorities to vote on, and (8) discuss other business.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to M. Jan Saunders at the Mid-Atlantic Council 
Office, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: December 17, 2020.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-28294 Filed 12-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
# C_2010288EN.01006501.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/65

---

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2010 — British American Tobacco (Investments) v Commission

(Case T-170/03) (1)

()

(2010/C 288/116)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.

---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9802 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to require the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services to verify whether a health care provider 

is licensed in good standing before issuing the provider a unique health 

identifier, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Mr. BEAN of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XI of the Social Security Act to require 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services to verify 

whether a health care provider is licensed in good standing before issuing the provider a unique health identifier, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical License 

5 Verification Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 9802 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO VERIFY THAT A HEALTH CARE 

2 PROVIDER IS LICENSED IN GOOD STANDING 

3 BEFORE ISSUING A UNIQUE HEALTH IDENTI4 FIER. 

5 Section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1320d–2(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) VERIFICATION OF LICENSE IN GOOD

9 STANDING.—Not later than 30 days after the date 

10 of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall 

11 establish and implement an automated system that 

12 enables the Secretary to verify whether a person de13 scribed in section 1172(a)(3) who is an applicant for 

14 a unique health identifier and who claims in the ap15 plication to be licensed in a State is actually licensed 

16 in that State and that such license is in good stand17 ing. Such verification shall be done before providing 

18 the applicant with such an identifier.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0272

_________________ PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF MONTANA and PAUL FREDERICK HENKE, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients,

Plaintiffs and Appellees,

v. STATE OF MONTANA and AUSTIN KNUDSEN, Attorney General of the State of Montana, in his official capacity, and his agents and successors,

Defendants and Appellants. O R D E R

_________________ Nicole Saharsky, of Washington, DC , has submitted an application to appear pro hac vice before this Court in the above

- entitled cause. The application demonstrates that Petitioner Saharsky i s currently in good standing with another state jurisdiction in which Saharsky is admitted to the practice of law, Montana counsel listed in the application is in good standing with the State Bar of Montana, and this is the first appearance of Petitioner

. According to the Bar Admissions Administrator, however, this would be the fourth appearance of Petitioner’s firm before this Court. R

ule VI(C) of our Rules for Admission to the Bar of Montana requires a showing of good cause before an attorney or firm may be granted leave to appear pro hac vice in more than two actions or proceedings. Pending consideration of a renewed application with a statement of good cause, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application of Nicole Saharsky to appear pro hac vice in the above

- entitled cause is DENIED without prejudice

. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Nichole Saharsky, to all counsel of record in this appeal, and to the State Bar of Montana

. Electronically signed by: Beth Baker Justice, Montana Supreme Court December 18 2023

12/18/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0272
**Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2007 – Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission**

**(Case T-113/04)**

Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance – Repayment of the costs of bank guarantees provided in order to defer payment of a fine imposed by the Commission and subsequently
annulled by the Court of First Instance – Action for annulment and damages – Non‐contractual liability of the Community – No direct causal link between the allegedly unlawful conduct of the institution and the damage claimed

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement – No remedy based on Articles 220
EC and 233 EC – Possibility for parties to argue their rights on the basis of Articles 230 EC and 232 EC (Arts 220 EC, 230
EC, 232 EC and 233 EC) (see paras 22-23)*

2.                     *Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Meaning – Costs of a bank guarantee arising
from an undertaking’s choice not to pay the fine imposed by the Commission – No direct causal link (EC Treaty, Arts 185 and
192, first para. (now Arts 242 EC and 256, first para., EC); Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 31-40)*

3.                     *Actions for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Judgment annulling the fine imposed on an undertaking for
infringement of the competition rules or reducing the amount of the fine – Obligation to implement – Scope – Repayment of
the sum unduly paid and payment of default interest – Included – Costs of bank guarantee – Not included (Art. 233 EC) (see
paras 58-65)*

**Re:**

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission letter of 6 January 2004 refusing to repay the costs of the bank guarantees which the applicants entered into following the imposition of fines by Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) (Case No IV/35.134 – Trans‐Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1), annulled by judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2003 in Joined Cases T‐191/98 and T‐212/98 to T‐214/98 | Atlantic Container Line and Others | v | Commission | [2003] ECR II‐3275, and, secondly, for damages seeking repayment of those costs. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the applicants to pay the costs. |
#### § 922.827 Special performance standards—coal processing plants and support facilities not located at or near the minesite or not within the permit area for a mine.

Part 827 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—Coal Processing Plants and Support Facilities not Located at or near the Minesite or not within the Permit Area for a Mine,* shall apply to any person who conducts surface coal mining and reclamation operations which include the operation of coal processing plants and support facilities not located at or near the minesite and not within the permit area for a mine.
**Exhibit23.1**

 

# **Consent of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

#  

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(No. 333-78051) and Form S-8 (No. 333-69827, 033-65142, 033-62718, 033-49704and 333-107932) of Hickory Tech Corporation of our report dated March 7, 2006relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears inthe Annual Report to Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference of ourreport dated March 7, 2006 relating to the financial statement schedule, whichappears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 7, 2006

 

1

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 8029** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
ISSAC RASHAD BELT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Alexander Williams, Jr. , District Judge. ( 8:04

- cr - 00559

- AW

- 6 )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Thomas Sarachan, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Barbara S. Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Issac Rashad Belt appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). Although the district court granted Belt’s § 3582 motion, the court did not reduce Belt’s sentence to the full extent he requested. On appeal, Belt argues that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Dorsey v. United States , 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012), the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub.

L. No. 111

- 220, 12 4 Stat. 2372, should apply to his motion

. Contrary to Belt’s assertion, however, Dorsey did not alter this court’s prior holding that the FSA does not apply retroactively to defendants sentenced prior to its effective date. See United
States v. Bullard , 645 F.3d 237, 248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 356 (2011). * Because Belt was sentenced in April
2006, prior to the FSA’s effective date, the FSA had no effect

on Belt ’s mandatory minimum sentence, and the district court properly concluded that Bel t was not entitled to a sentence
reduction under the Act

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the

* Belt’s attempt to distinguish Bullard is meritless , as the Supreme Court made clear in Dorsey that the FSA does not apply to defendants sentenced before the FSA’s effective date of August 3, 2010

. 132 S. Ct. at 2335 ; see United States v. Stewart , 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) (acknowledging that consideration of a § 3582(c)(2) motion does not constitute “a full resentencing by the court”).3 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §6387. Regulations

The Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe regulations necessary for the administration of this subchapter. The regulations prescribed under this subchapter shall, to the extent appropriate, be consistent with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor to carry out title I of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

(Added Pub. L. 103–3, title II, §201(a)(1), Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 23.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 103–3, Feb. 5, 1993, 107 Stat. 6. Title I of the Act is classified generally to subchapter I (§2611 et seq.) of chapter 28 of Title 29, Labor. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2601 of Title 29 and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 6 months after Feb. 5, 1993, see section 405(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–3, set out as a note under section 2601 of Title 29, Labor.
#### §§ 200.1590-200.1990 [Reserved]
§ 203.11 Ineligible activities. The following activities are ineligible for assistance under the TAPP program: ( a ) Litigation or underwriting legal actions, such as paying for attorney fees or paying for a technical assistance provider to assist an attorney in preparing legal action or preparing for and serving as an expert witness at any legal proceeding regarding or affecting the site.
( b ) Political activity and lobbying as defined by OMB Circular A-122.
( c ) Other activities inconsistent with the cost principles stated in OMB Circular A-122, “Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations.”
( d ) Generation of new primary data, such as well drilling and testing, including split sampling.
( e ) Reopening final DoD decisions, such as the Records of Decision (see limitations on judicial review of remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 113(h)) or conducting disputes with the Department of Defense).
( f ) Epidemiological or health studies, such as blood or urine testing.
( g ) Community outreach efforts, such as renting a facility and conducting public meetings, or producing and distributing newsletters.
§ 196.525 Fringe benefits. ( a ) *“Fringe benefits” defined.* For purposes of these Title IX regulations, *fringe benefits* means: Any medical, hospital, accident, life insurance, or retirement benefit, service, policy or plan, any profit-sharing or bonus plan, leave, and any other benefit or service of employment not subject to the provision of § 196.515.
( b ) *Prohibitions.* A recipient shall not: ( 1 ) Discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to making fringe benefits available to employees or make fringe benefits available to spouses, families, or dependents of employees differently upon the basis of the employee's sex;
( 2 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a fringe benefit plan that does not provide for equal periodic benefits for members of each sex and for equal contributions to the plan by such recipient for members of each sex; or
( 3 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a pension or retirement plan that establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or that otherwise discriminates in benefits on the basis of sex.
Map 2-36: Proposed Plan

Sagebrush Focal Areas and

Sage Grouse Habitat Classifications

on BLM & USFS Managed Lands

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundaries

Sagebrush Focal Areas

BLM/USFS Surface by Sage Grouse Habitat Type

Priority Habitat Management Area (Core)

Priority Habitat Management Area (Connectivity)

General Habitat Management Area

USFS Proposed Priority Habitat Management Area (Core)

USFS Proposed Priority Habitat Management Area (Connectivity)

Non Sage Grouse Habitat

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments