alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Euroopan unionin C 345/2015

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 345 |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 58. vuosikerta18. lokakuuta 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 345

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

58. vuosikerta18. lokakuuta 2015

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Tiedotteet |
| | EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET |
| | Neuvosto |
| 2015/C 345/01 | Neuvoston lausuma | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

IV   Tiedotteet

EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET

Neuvosto

2015/C 345/01

Neuvoston lausuma

1

---

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

IV Tiedotteet

EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET

Neuvosto

| 18.10.2015 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | C 345/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2015

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

C 345/1

---

NEUVOSTON LAUSUMA

(2015/C 345/01)

Neuvosto toteaa, että sitoumus kaikkien ydinalaan liittyvien EU:n pakotteiden poistamisesta yhteisen kattavan toimintasuunnitelman mukaisesti ei rajoita toimintasuunnitelmassa määritetyn riitojenratkaisumekanismin soveltamista eikä EU:n pakotteiden uutta käyttöönottoa siinä tapauksessa, että Iran jättää merkittävällä tavalla täyttämättä toimintasuunnitelman mukaiset sitoumuksensa.

Neuvosto sitoutuu ottamaan Euroopan unionin ulkoasioiden ja turvallisuuspolitiikan korkean edustajan, Ranskan, Saksan ja Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan neuvostolle antamasta yhteisestä suosituksesta viipymättä uudelleen käyttöön kaikki ydinalaan liittyvät EU:n pakotteet, joiden soveltaminen on keskeytetty ja/tai lopetettu, jos Iran jättää merkittävällä tavalla täyttämättä toimintasuunnitelman mukaiset sitoumuksensa.

---
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) 12 CR 172-2

)

Chadia Abuied, )

Defendant. )

UNOPPOSED PETITION FOR ORDER TO ALLOW TRAVEL AND RETURN OF PASSPORT

(Corrected copy of Doc. 94, Para. 6, italicized change)

NOW COMES Chadia Abueid, defendant herein, requesting this court to enter an order 

allowing her to travel to Florida and ordering the return of her passport for one day and in 

support thereof states:

1. Upon the demise of her father nearly a year ago (whose funeral she attended in 

Palestine with the permission of the court) certain family property, a small home in 

Brazil, became free for sale;

2. That Ms. Abueid and her siblings have agreed to vest in their brother the authority to 

alienate the property (requiring his presence in Brazil);

3. That to effectuate his authority to do so, Ms. Abueid is required to execute an affidavit 

in the presence of a notary at the Brazilian legation in Chicago forthwith;

4. That the legation officer requires passport identification to allow the execution of the 

affidavit by Ms. Abueid;

5. That her passport has been surrendered to Pretrial Services pursuant to court order 

after her return last year from Palestine;

Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 95 Filed: 07/17/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:232
2

6. That Ms. Abueid, therefore, requests that pretrial services be allowed to return her 

passport to her for one day to complete the affidavit, returning the passport to pretrial

services the same business day, that day and time to be determined by the pretrial 

services officer and Ms. Abueid;

7. That additionally, Ms. Abueid requests the court grant her permission to travel to 

Florida from July 27th to August 6, 2014 to visit her mother who is visiting the United 

States, the exact itinerary and locations of her visitation residence or residences during 

the Florida trip to be worked out between Ms. Abueid and the pretrial service officer 

before her departure;

8. That both the United States Attorney, per Mr. Chris Grohman, and the pre-trial services 

officer Mr. James Wheatley, do not oppose her request for a brief one day return of her 

passport or her travel plans to Florida described above.

Wherefore, defendant prays that the court enter a minute order modifying the 

conditions of her bond to permit the return of her passport for one day and permitting her 

travel to Florida.

Respectfully submitted,

/Robert G. Clarke, Attorney

Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 95 Filed: 07/17/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:233
3

NOTICE OF FILING-PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have filed this motion to enlarge the bond of Chadia Abueid, this 

17th day of July, 2014 with the clerk of the court using the CM/ECF system, which filing will 

send notification of such filing to the other CM/ECF participants.

s/Robert G. Clarke, Attorney

Case: 1:12-cr-00172 Document #: 95 Filed: 07/17/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:234
#### In the Matter of Ronnie Covington, Petitioner, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 310]—

*975Kane, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Petitioner, while on parole, was arrested twice within a short time period. Following a parole revocation hearing, an Administrative Law Judge revoked his parole based upon petitioner’s violation of conditions of parole by failing to immediately report these arrests and by violating a curfew. The Board of Parole affirmed the revocation. Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge the Board’s determination. His amended petition added claims regarding inquiries under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) and that he is entitled to termination of his parole.

The arresting officer testified that petitioner appeared at the police station at approximately 4:00 a.m. seeking information about a friend who ha i been arrested. This clearly violated the condition of parole imposing a curfew. Petitioner’s parole officer testified that petitioner did not inform him of the arrests until his appointment more than one week after the second arrest. On the other hand, petitioner testified that he only went to the police station after being summoned there by a detective, he attempted to call his parole officer soon after his arrests and he left messages regarding the arrests with other parole officers. The Board was free to resolve issues of credibility and chose to believe the police officer and parole officer, finding petitioner incredible *(see Matter of Kovalsky v New York State Div. of Parole,*30 AD3d 679, 680 [2006]). Accepting the officers’ testimony, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination *(see id.).*

Respondents adequately replied to petitioner’s requests under the Freedom of Information Law. Petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to termination of his parole under Executive Law § 259-j is without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition and amended petition dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Messina, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 7, 1963, which denied, without a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered June 20, 1961 after a jury trial, convicting him of murder in the first degree while engaged in the commission of a felony, and, on the jury’s recommendation, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Order affirmed. This *coram nobis*application is based upon the defendant’s claim that at the time of his trial he was legally insane because: (a) he had been previously committed in 1957 to the Central Islip State Hospital upon a civil commitment issued by the County Court, Nassau County; and (b) he had not been discharged therefrom until after he was sentenced upon his conviction. The record discloses the following undisputed facts: The crime for which defendant was convicted occurred subsequent to his escape from Central Islip State Hospital and during his absence therefrom. Prior to arraignment, the County Court, Kings County, committed him to Kings County Hospital for observation and report. That institution’s report to the court was that he was competent to stand trial. On motion of his own counsel, the report was confirmed and defendant was remanded for trial. The issue of insanity was thus raised and determined on the trial and is a matter of record. However this issue was not raised on the appeal from the judgment of conviction (16 A D 2d 961, mot. for iv. to opp. to Court of Appeals den. Feb. 22, 1963 [Desmond, Ch. J.]); it cannot be litigated anew on this *coram nobis*proceeding. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### MUSCHEL v. AUSTERN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Release—Impeachment—Evidence.

In an action on an assigned claim defendant pleaded a release executed in the name of the firm creditor by defendant’s brother on November 3, 1902. The firm went into bankruptcy on November 5th or 6th, and one of the members of the firm testified that he knew nothing of the making of the release, and in January, 1903, defendant admitted *957the correctness of the claim against him, and did not interpose his release until suit was brought to recover the amount due. Defendant paid nothing at the time the release was executed, though he owed the firm at that time $71. *Held,*that a finding that the release was invalid was proper.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Action by Maurice Muschel against Carl Austern. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

M. Silverstein, for appellant.

I. Frey, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant urges three grounds for the reversal of the judgment herein: First, that the same is against the weight of evidence; second, errors in the rulings of the trial judge; and, third, that the judgment is contrary to law. None of these objections are borne out by our examination of the evidence. There was abundant evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court, and none of the rulings of the court constitute reversible error. The cause of action arose out of certain transactions between the firm of Heller & Austin, plaintiff’s assignors, and the defendant; by which the defendant became indebted to said firm. The defendant introduced in evidence what purported to be a general release executed by the brother of the defendant in the firm name of Heller & Austin. This release was apparently executed November 3, 1902. The testimony shows that the firm of Heller & Austin went into bankruptcy on November 5 or 6, 1902; that Heller, one of the firm, knew nothing of the making of the release; that in January, 1903, the defendant examined the bills charging him with his indebtedness to the firm of Heller & Austin in the amount claimed herein by plaintiff, and admitted their correctness; that the defense of a general release was not interposed in this action until some two months after issue was joined; and that, although this defendant and his brother (who executed the release) both concede that the defendant owed the firm $71 at the time the release was claimed to have been executed, nothing was paid by defendant towards liquidating such indebtedness. Under this state of facts we think the release was sufficiently impeached, and the trial court was correct in so finding.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
59

Appendix I

Health Service Area Boundary Map
60
## Indirect Cost Division (ICD)

- **What  is the Indirect Cost Division?******
- **Who is Responsible For my Indirect Cost Rate Negotiation?**
- **So You Want to Know About Indirect Costs?** 
- **Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):**    - **For State & Local Governments: excerpt from the "Cost Allocation Guide for State and Local Governments".**
  - **For Non-Profit Organizations: excerpt from the "1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Guide for Indirect Cost Rate Determination, Cost Principles and Procedures for Nonprofit Organizations Required by OMB Circular A-122"**
  - **From Our Customers** 
- **Service Representatives**
17.701 Definitions. As used in this subpart— *Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition official* means— ( 1 ) A DoD contracting officer; or
( 2 ) Any other DoD official authorized to approve a direct acquisition or an assisted acquisition on behalf of DoD.
*Nondefense agency* means any department or agency of the Federal Government other than the Department of Defense.
*Nondefense agency that is an element of the intelligence community* means the agencies identified in 50 U.S.C. 3003(4), which include the— ( 1 ) Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
( 2 ) Central Intelligence Agency;
( 3 ) Intelligence elements of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Energy, and Drug Enforcement Agency;
( 4 ) Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State;
( 5 ) Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of the Treasury;
( 6 ) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Intelligence of the Coast Guard; and
( 7 ) Such other elements of any department or agency as have been designated by the President, or designated jointly by the Director of National Intelligence and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence community.
[77 FR 69722, Nov. 20, 2012, as amended at 87 FR 73889, Dec. 1, 2022]
11-920.131 March 7, 2013

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 11 CR 920

)

GEORGE KASP, )

)

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On January 9, 2013, the defendant, George Kasp, filed a

“Motion for Dismissal of Indictment with Prejudice Due to Grand

Jury Irregularities.” The motion alleges that the indictment

should be dismissed because (1) defendant was not present in open

court when the indictment was returned; (2) the record does not

show that twelve members of the grand jury concurred in the

indictment; and (3) the indictment was not signed by the United

States Attorney and the Grand Jury Foreperson. 

The government filed a Response on January 31, 2013, pointing

out (1) that the defendant had no right to be present in open court

when the indictment was returned; (2) on January 17, 2012, the

indictment was returned in open court before Magistrate Judge

Morton Denlow, who entered an order reading: “The Grand Jury for
-2-

Special February 2011-1,. . . a quorum being present, returns the

above entitled document in open Court” (emphasis added); and (3)

there is no evidence that the indictment was not signed by the

United States Attorney and the Grand Jury Foreperson. 

On February 25, 2013, the defendant filed a “Response to

Government’s Response,” which repeats the assertions made in his

motion and goes on to include a rambling discussion of matters that

are completely irrelevant to the motion.1/

The defendant has failed to show any basis for dismissing the

indictment. Certainly he has not overcome the presumption of

regularity that attends grand jury proceedings. See United States

v. Lisinski, 728 F.2d 887, 893-94 (7 Cir. 1984) (a presumption of th

regularity is accorded to grand jury proceedings, and defendants

have a difficult burden to prove any irregularity).

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment [55] is

denied. 

DATE: March 7, 2013

ENTER: _________________________________________________

John F. Grady, United States District Judge

We have the impression that most of the discussion is cribbed from 1/

filings by other defendants in other cases.
STATE OF NEW MEXICO BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE SAN JUAN GENERATING STATION BEST AVAILABLE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY DETERMINATION No. EIB 13
- 02 (R)

_____________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF HEARING NOTICE AND PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S

______________________________________________________________________________ The New Mexico Environ ment Department ("Department") files this notice that on June 28, 2013, notice of the public hearing in this matter, scheduled for September 5

– 6, 2013, was published in the New Mexico Register, the Albuquerque Journal (in English and Spanish) , and
the Farmington Daily Times (in English and Spanish). This fulfills the requirement of
20.1. 1.301.A NMAC that notice be given at least 60 days in advance of the hearing. Concurrently with publication of this notice, public review drafts of the proposed State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) revisions ( i.e., Chapter 10 and Appendix D of the R egional H aze SIP) were posted on the Department ’s web page. Copies of the public review drafts of Chapter 10 and Appendix D are attached hereto as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively. Also attached are Attachments 3 and 4, showing in legislative drafting format the changes in the public review drafts as compared to the versions of Chapter 10 and Appendix D , respectively, that were filed with the Board with the May 21, 2013 request for hearing.
#### Nicholas Cassieri et al., Respondents, v. Houston Motors Auto Leasing, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered July 10, 1961, insofar as it denies a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to dismiss the complaint granted, with $10 costs. This action was brought to recover for personal injuries and property damage alleged to have been caused by negligence in the operation of an automobile owned by the defendant. The accident occurred on May 11, 1957 and the summons was not served until May 10, 1960. Thereafter, on May 18> 1960, the defendant served a notice of appearance and a demand for the complaint, but the complaint was not served until May 22, 1961. The inordinate delay in the service of the complaint is not sufficiently explained, and the plaintiffs do not submit any affidavits tending to show that they do in fact have a meritorious cause of action. Under the circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion to dismiss the action for the unreasonable neglect of plaintiff to proceed with the .prosecution thereof. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 181; cf. *Threewitts*v. *Almcmzar,*11 A D 2d 981; *Gray*v. *Yale Transp. Corp.,*11 A D 2d 1072; *Randolph*v. *Gotham Constr. Corp.,*12 A D 2d 478; *Wavrovics*v. *City of New York,*13 A D 2d 738.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.
US EPA W ater Quality Standards Regulatory Changes

- National Tribal Consultatio n
December 14, 2010
Participant Listing

**First & Last Name Af**  **filiation** 1 ROMAN ORONA AK

- CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY 2 TODD THORN COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES 3 PAULA W EBSTER CONFE DERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES 4 DEEPAK SEHGAL CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WARM SPRINGS 5 JEFF LYNCH CORTINA INDIAN RANCH 6 DEBBIE DOTSON EASTERN SHAW NEE TRIBE OF OK 7 SALLY BROUGH EPA REGION 10 8 KATHLEEN MAYO EPA REGION 5 9 DIANE EVANS EPA REGION 6 10 JANE KLOECKNER EPA REGION 7 11 GEORGE PARRISH EPA REGION 8 12 NANCY SCHULDT FOND DU LAC RESERVATION 13 MATTHEW ST EINBACH FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI 14 SANDRA W HITEEAGLE FORT PECK TRIBE 15 WARREN SCARLETT HOH INDIAN TRIBE 16 KEN MARTIN HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE 17 ALEX CABILLO HUALAPAI TRIBE 18 KEN KNIGHT / VICKIE KUJA WA IOWA T RIBE OF OK 19 SHARON KOZEVNIKOFF IQURMIUK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL 20 SARAH BURGER KAIBAB PAIUTE TRIBE 21 HENRY HARJO KIALEGEE TRIBAL TOW N 22 GEORGE BECK LAC VIEUX DESERT BAND 23 D IANE MCHENRY LOS COYOTES 24 JOSE AGUTO NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 25 MARK LAMARO NATIVE VILLAGE EQUIP 26 CLAYTON TACKETT NATIVE VILLAGE OF FORT YUKON 27 ERIC MORRIS NATIVE VILLAGE OF WH ITE MOUNTAIN 28 ERIC RICH NAVAJO NATION 29 JOE WALKSAL ONG NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE 30 NAOMI ARCHURLETA OHKAY OW INGEH 31 TERESA SW OYER OTOE

- MISSOURIA TRIBE 32 KELTON KERSEY PAW NEE NATION 33 ADAM RINGIA PUEBLO OF LAGUNA 34 CURTIS FRANCISCO PUEBLO OF LAGUNA 35 SCOTT BULGRIN PUEBLO OF SANDIA 36 BART VANDENP LAS PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA 37 ROBERT GOMEZ PUEBLO OF TAOS 38 JEFF OGBURN PUEBLO OF TAOS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICE 39 MARY CANTRELL QUAPA W TRIBE OF OK 40 CATHY KINDQUIST QUARTZ VALLEY INDIAN RESERVATION 41 DEBBIE MCCUBBIN ROBINSON RANCHERO ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER 42 RICHARD KING SAADMI43 DANIEL W IND SAC AND FOX NATION (OK)

44 TERESA AUSBERGER SAC AND FOX NATION OF MISSOURI 45 CAREY PAUQUETTE

-SCHALM SAGINAWCHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE 46 CANDON TANAKA SHOSHONE

- BANNOCK TRIBES 47 CINDY SPIRY SNOQUALMIE INDIAN TRIBE 48 KIMBERLY MILLER SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS 49 JOHN O'LEARY SUQUAMISH TRIBE 50 NAOMI TILLISON THE BAD RIVER TRIBE 51 RACHAEL YOUMANS THE SUMMIT LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE 52 ROBIN BLYTHE THE YUROK TRIBE 53 KATHLEEN SLOAN THE YUROK TRIBE 54 JIM SMITGEN UNITED TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WI 55 MEGAN ULRICH UPPER SIOUX COMMUNITY 56 JUANITA WATERSON UTU UTU GWA IT U PAIUTE TRIBE 57 TARA HESS WASHOE 58 DEAN GOGGLES WI ND RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION 59 JANICE WI LSON WY ANDOTTE NATION 60 JOANNE CORWALL YAKAMA NATION
#### 1852.219-77 NASA Mentor-Protégé Program.

As prescribed in 1819.7215, insert the following clause:

# NASA Mentor-ProtÉGÉ Program (OCT 2023)

(a) Prime contractors are encouraged to participate in the NASA Mentor-Protégé Program for the purpose of providing developmental assistance to eligible protégé entities to enhance their capabilities and increase their participation in NASA contracts.

(b) The Program consists of—

(1) Mentors, which are large business prime or research institution with at least one approved NASA subcontracting plan;

(2) Protégés, which qualify as one or more of the following:

(i) Small Business Concern, as defined in FAR part 2, Definitions of Parts and Terms, including: Women-Owned or Economically-Owned Concern; Veteran-Owned or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern; Historically Underutilized Business Zone Concern;

(ii) Historically Black College and University or Minority-Serving Institution;

(iii) Current NASA SBIR/STTR Phase II Company; or

(iv) An Entity Participating in the AbilityOne Program;

(3) MPA endorsed by the cognizant NASA centers and approved by the NASA MPPO; and

(4) In contracts with award fee incentives, potential for payment of an award fee for voluntary participation and successful performance in the Mentor-Protégé Program, in accordance with NFS 1819.7205.

(c) Mentor participation in the program, described in NFS 1819.72, means providing technical, managerial, and financial assistance to aid protégés in developing requisite high-tech expertise and business systems to compete for and successfully perform NASA, as well as other Federal and commercial contracts and subcontracts.

(d) Eligible businesses and research institutions interested in participating in the program are encouraged to contact the NASA MPPO.

(End of clause)

[74 FR 25676, May 29, 2009, as amended at 80 FR 12947, Mar. 12, 2015; 80 FR 50212, Aug. 19, 2015; 88 FR 69886, Oct. 10, 2023]