alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLIAM J. PETTERSON, Petitioner-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, *v.*JACK SCOVILLE *et al.,*Respondents-Appellees and Cross-Appellants.

Fifth District

No. 80-67

Opinion filed March 11, 1980.

Pessin, Baird & Wells, of Belleville (Sam S. Pessin, of counsel), for appellant.

Gomric & Kurowski, of Belleville (James J. Gomric and John J. Kurowski, of counsel), for appellee Jack Scoville.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner filed objections to the primary nomination papers of respondent, Jack Scoville, for nomination as representative in the General Assembly for the 57th Legislative District by the Democratic Party. Following a hearing before the Electoral Board of St. Clair County, the Board ordered that the petition be denied and that respondent be certified as a qualified candidate for the office of representative to the General Assembly for the 57th Legislative District. On review, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the Board. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, respondent filed a notice of cross-appeal, and we ordered an expedited briefing schedule in view of the March 18, 1980, primary elections.

Although both parties present several issues for review, we cannot address them because the decision of the circuit court in reviewing the order of the electoral board is final under section 10 — 10.1 of the Election Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 46, par. 10 — 10.1) and not subject to further review by this court. Pursuant to our discussion of this section of the Election Code in *Lawrence v. Board of Election Commissioners*(1977), 45 Ill. App. 3d 776, 360 N.E.2d 168, we find that we do not have *747jurisdiction to reach the merits of this case and therefore dismiss the appeal.

Although we find no substantial question presented, and therefore have disposed of this case without oral argument pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110A, par. 352(a)), we believe that an opinion may have precedential value especially when a decision of an electoral board is contested so close to the primary elections.

Appeal dismissed.

KARNS and HARRISON, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:99cr23-RH/WCS

4:03cv9-RH/WCS

NGHIA LE,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER DENYING §2255 MOTION

This matter is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (document 189), the earlier order incorporated by reference into

the report and recommendation (document 167), and the objections to the report

and recommendation (document 193). I have reviewed de novo the issues raised

by the objections. The report and recommendation is correct and will be adopted

as the opinion of the court, with this additional note.

Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arranged for an informant to

have access to defendant while in pretrial detention. As set forth in the report and

recommendation, there were legitimate purposes for seeking information from

defendant unrelated to the charges in the case at bar. But the informant also

intruded into the attorney-client relationship between defendant and his attorney in

Case 4:99-cr-00023-RH-CAS Document 194 Filed 10/10/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Case No: 4:99cr23-RH/WCS and 4:03cv9-RH/WCS

this case, both eliciting information regarding this case and encouraging defendant

to plead guilty. Agents learned of but did nothing to end or remedy this rather

clear violation of defendant’s sixth amendment rights. The issue, however, is not

whether defendant’s rights were violated (they were), but what should be done

about it. 

The Supreme Court has made clear that the indictment need not be dismissed

as a result of government misconduct of this type. See United States v. Morrison,

449 U.S. 361, 101 S. Ct. 665, 66 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1981). Instead, what must be done

is simply to “neutralize the taint by tailoring relief appropriate in the circumstances

to assure the defendant the effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial.” 449

U.S. at 365. 

The report and recommendation correctly concludes that defendant received

a full and fair trial untainted by the violations. It would serve no purpose to order a

retrial, because the retrial would be the same as the trial that just occurred. 

Defendant is not entitled to relief from the conviction and sentence that were

imposed following full and fair proceedings unaffected by the violations at issue.

For these reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the opinion

of the court. Defendant’s motion (document 127) for relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255

Case 4:99-cr-00023-RH-CAS Document 194 Filed 10/10/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No: 4:99cr23-RH/WCS and 4:03cv9-RH/WCS

is DENIED with prejudice. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:99-cr-00023-RH-CAS Document 194 Filed 10/10/05 Page 3 of 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71107-71108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10854-109]

Upper Peninsula Power Company; UP Hydro; Notice of Application 
for Transfer of License, and Soliciting Comments and Motions To 
Intervene

November 12, 2010.
    On November 1, 2010, Upper Peninsula Power Company (transferor) and 
UP Hydro (transferee) filed an application for transfer of license for 
the Cataract Hydroelectric Project No. 10854, located on the Escanaba 
River in Marquette County, Michigan.
    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the 
Cataract Hydroelectric Project from transferor to transferee.
    Applicants' Contact: Transferor: Terry P. Jensky, Upper Peninsula 
Company, 700 N. Adams Street, Green Bay, WI 54307, (920) 433-2900. For 
Transferee: Charles F. Alsberg, North American Hydro Holdings, Inc., 
116 State Street, Neshkoro, WI 54960, (920) 293-4628 Ext. 11.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis (202) 502-8735.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 15 days from 
the issuance date of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may 
be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and 
the instructions

[[Page 71108]]

on the Commission's Web site under http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at 
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your 
name and contact information at the end of your comments. If unable to 
be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, 
an original plus seven copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, 
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. More information about this project can be viewed 
or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
10854) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29307 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony Frankewich, Appellant.

-Appeal unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: Upon the application of the defendant the proceedings were withdrawn and discontinued. There is no order before us from which an appeal may be taken. (Appeal sought to be taken from the granting of defendant’s application for withdrawal and dismissal of his *coram nobis*proceeding had in Herkimer County Court, to vacate a judgment of conviction for grand larceny and forgery rendered June 26, 1962.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
Case 5:02-cv-00136-MP Document 4 Filed 05/21/02 Page 1 of 1
1 Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 9:05 AM
To: 'rgrant@krpc.com'
Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Informat ion: KRPC Channel 2 (FAA-2015-2473)

August 27, 2015

Dear Mr. Grant:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-2473). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), m odel(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) sh ould include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by September 10, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.
§ 4288.104 Compliance with other laws and regulations. ( a ) Advanced biofuel producers must comply with other applicable Federal, State, and local laws, including, but not limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E. This includes collection and maintenance of race, sex, and national origin data of the recipient's employee.
( b ) Producers must comply with equal opportunity and nondiscriminatory requirements in accordance with 7 CFR 15d. Rural Development will not discriminate against an applicant on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, disability, or age (provided that the applicant has the capacity to contract); to the fact that all or part of the applicant's income derives from public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
#### Nancy Wronowski, Respondent-Appellant, v. Mid-City Shopping Center, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Nancy Wronowski, Appellant, v. Harold Jarvis, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.) Mid-City Shopping Center, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Topp’s Discount City, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (Action No. 3.)

Memorandum by the Court. Absent any exception to the charge or any pertinent request to charge, appellant’s counsel having indeed affirmatively approved the charge, we find no basis for disturbing the judgment entered upon the verdict of no cause of action in favor of the third-party defendant. The indefensible conduct of plaintiff’s attorney, in large part evoked by the actions of appellant’s attorney, is not to be condoned, but we find that no substantial prejudice was caused thereby. The verdict was not excessive. Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents filing briefs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi and Brink, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cr-05-MCR-GRJ

HERBERT D. BROWN,

____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 118, Defendant’s “Motion for

Recharacterization of Movants’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Grounds and Supporting Facts.” 

Defendant previously was ordered to amend his motion on the Court’s form. (Doc.

114.) Defendant amended on the Court’s forms as instructed but rather than offer any

supporting facts for each ground of his amended motion, merely referred to “See:

Attachment Memorandum and Supporting Facts” and further failed to file the

“Attachment Memorandum and Supporting Facts” with his amended motion. (Doc.

116.) The Court ordered Defendant to file a second amended motion and attach

thereto any memorandum he wished to include. (Doc. 117.) In this instant motion, it is

unclear what exactly Defendant is requesting the Court do for him, but to the extent he

wants the Court to reorganize the docket so that he can avoid the Court’s previous

directive, his motion is due to be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion, Doc. 118, is DENIED.

2. Defendant is still required to comply with the Court’s previous Order of July 3,

2012 (Doc. 117), which gave him until on or before August 2, 2012 to file a

second amended motion to vacate which includes all grounds for relief and, if he

wishes to include an “Attachment Memorandum and Supporting Facts” he must

attach this to the Second Amended Motion. Defendant is further advised that he

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-CJK Document 119 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

may wish to include his argument as to why his motion is not time-barred (as

previously set forth in his motion for leave to file, Doc. 111) in any memorandum

attached to the Second Amended Motion.

3. Failure to comply with this Order within the allotted time will result in a

recommendation to the District Judge that this case be dismissed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 23 day of July 2012.

rd

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:03-cr-05-MCR-GRJ

Case 5:03-cr-00005-MCR-CJK Document 119 Filed 07/23/12 Page 2 of 2
16.302 Cost contracts.       (a)                   *Description.* A cost contract is a cost-reimbursement contract in which the contractor receives no fee.                                          (b)                   *Application*. A cost contract may be appropriate for research and development work, particularly with nonprofit educational institutions or other nonprofit organizations.                                          (c)                   *Limitations*. See 16.301-3.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 16.3 - Cost-Reimbursement Contracts
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1110

STEVEN ELLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RITA MARIANNI, INCORPORATED; RICHARD CHRIS FAY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00623-TRJ) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 12, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrell N. Roberts, III, ROBERTS & WOOD, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellant. C. Jay Robbins, IV, MIDKIFF, MUNCIE & ROSS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The case was tried before a magist rate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Steven Eller appeals from the magistrate judge’s orders denying his request for a jury trial and entering judgment in favor of the Defendants on his civil diversity action. * We have reviewed the record included on appeal, including the magistrate judge’s opinion and the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. SeeEller v. Rita Marianni, Inc. , No. 1:06-cv-00623-TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 5, 2007 & entered Jan. 8, 2007). 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
# L_2022297DE.01008601.xml

| 17.11.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 297/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 297/86

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2021/666 der Kommission vom 22. April 2021 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 923/2012 hinsichtlich der Anforderungen an den Flugbetrieb der bemannten Luftfahrt im U-Space-Luftraum

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 139 vom 23. April 2021
  )

Seite 188, Artikel 1 Nummer 2 zur Änderung von Punkt SERA.6005 in Abschnitt 6 im Anhang der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 923/2012, Buchstabe d:

Anstatt:

| „d) | Lufträume, die zu einem Gebiet mit Funkkommunikationspflicht und/oder einem Gebiet mit Transponderpflicht erklärt wurden, müssen im Luftfahrthandbuch entsprechend ausgewiesen werden.‘“ |
| --- | --- |

„d)

Lufträume, die zu einem Gebiet mit Funkkommunikationspflicht und/oder einem Gebiet mit Transponderpflicht erklärt wurden, müssen im Luftfahrthandbuch entsprechend ausgewiesen werden.‘“

muss es heißen:

| „d) | Lufträume, die zu einem Gebiet mit Funkkommunikationspflicht, zu einem Gebiet mit Transponderpflicht oder zum U-Space-Luftraum erklärt wurden, müssen im Luftfahrthandbuch entsprechend ausgewiesen werden.‘“ |
| --- | --- |

„d)

Lufträume, die zu einem Gebiet mit Funkkommunikationspflicht, zu einem Gebiet mit Transponderpflicht oder zum U-Space-Luftraum erklärt wurden, müssen im Luftfahrthandbuch entsprechend ausgewiesen werden.‘“

---
9.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies, standards, and procedures for determining whether prospective

contractors and subcontractors are responsible.

Parent topic: Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors
Exhibit 10.6.3


 


Revised Summary of
Standard Compensatory Arrangement for Non-Employee Directors 

of the Principal Financial Group, Inc. Board of Directors


 


Effective
March 28, 2009


 


On March 16, 2009, the board of directors of Principal
Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) agreed to revise various components
of director compensation.


 


Annual Retainers


 


Beginning
March 28, 2009, directors who are not employees of the Company or its
subsidiaries will receive an annual retainer of $58,500 (payable semiannually),
a decrease from the prior annual retainer of $65,000.  Additional annual retainers received for
serving as chair of the full board or different committees of the board were
also decreased.  The annual retainer for
serving as the chair of the


 


·                  full board was decreased from $250,000 to
$225,000 (in lieu of all other cash compensation for service as a non-employee
director)


·                  audit committee was decreased from $20,000 to
$18,000,


·                  human resources committee was decreased from
$17,500 to $15,750,


·                  nominating and governance committee was decreased
from $15,000 to $13,500.


 


The
annual retainer of $5,000 for serving as chair of any other standing or ad hoc committee
of the board was decreased to $4,500.  The
annual retainer for serving as the presiding director of the board was decreased
from $15,000 to $13,500.  The nominating
and governance committee will determine the portion of the annual retainer
payable to a director who first becomes eligible for compensation during a
board year.


 


Attendance
fees for board and committee meetings were also decreased.  Non-employee directors receive a fee of
$2,250 per day for attendance in person at each regular or special meeting of
the board, a decrease of $250.  Directors
receive committee meeting fees of $1,350 for attendance in person (a decrease of
$150), unless the meeting occurs on the day before or on the day of a full board
meeting, in which case the meeting fee will be $1,170 (a decrease of $130).  Directors also receive a committee or full board
meeting fee of $900 (a decrease from $1,000) for participating in a telephone
conference call or videoconference meeting.


 


Restricted Stock Unit Grants


 


Beginning
in May 2009, at the close of each annual meeting, each non-employee
director will receive $95,000 worth of restricted stock units (unless a greater
or lesser amount is determined to be appropriate by the nominating and
governance committee), an increase from the prior annual grant of $85,000 worth
of restricted stock units.  There was no
change to this grant value at the March 16, 2009 meeting.


 

















 


These
restricted stock units will vest upon the director’s continued service at the
next annual meeting.  The receipt of the
restricted stock units will be deferred at least until the director’s
retirement or termination from the Board. 
Any director first elected subsequent to an annual meeting will be
granted the number of restricted stock units as determined by the committee.
Editorial Note on Part 4290
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

§ 4290.1130 Leverage fees payable by RBIC. ( a ) *Leverage fee.* You must pay the Agency a non-refundable leverage fee for each issuance of a Debenture. The fee is 3 percent of the face amount of the Debenture issued, and will be deducted from the proceeds remitted to you.
( b ) *Additional charge.* You must pay the Agency an additional annual charge of 1 percent of the outstanding amount of your Debenture.
( c ) *Other Leverage fees.* The Agency may establish a fee structure for services performed by the Central Registration Agent (CRA). The Agency will not collect any fee for its guarantee of TCs.
### RO 11502 9444.1990(03)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

APR 5 1990

Mr. Chuck Kreider BASF Corporation 8 Campus Drive Parsippany, New Jersey 07054

Dear Mr. Kreider:

This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1990 to Mr. Jace Cuje of Geo-Resource Consultants, Inc. (the RCRA/Superfund Hotline) concerning the commercial chemical product listing (40 CFR 261.33) for xylene (EPA Hazardous Waste No. U239). Specifically, you wanted to know if the listing for dimethyl benzene ( a chemical synonym for xylene) was listed for ignitability and toxicity, or ignitability only.

On April 22, 1988, the Agency promulgated technical corrections to the 261.33 listings. (See 53 FR 13382.) In the process of doing this, the Agency added Chemical Abstracts

Service (CAS) numbers to the listed chemicals, as well as chemical synonyms, to make understanding these regulations easier on the regulated community. Afte r these corrections appeared in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations, we realized that a few typographical errors had been made. The case of dimethyl benzene is one of them. The listing for "benzene, dimethyl" (U239, CAS No. 1330-20-7) should be only for ignitability. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any additional questions, please contact Ron Josephson of my staff at (202) 475-6715 or the RCRA/Superfu nd Hotline at (800) 424-9346.

Sincerely,

Original Document signed

Robert M. Scarberry, Chief Land Disposal Restrictions Branch
### Revised A **rea Source Boiler Preamble and Rule**

**Ma ry Johnson**  to

: Higgins, Cortney 12/19/2012 03:10 PM Cc : RobertJ W ayland, Thomas Gillis, Jim Eddinger , Keith Mason, Jonathan Averback

From: Mary Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> Cc: RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

Jim Eddinger

/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Keith Mason/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jonathan Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cortney, Attached is a redline version of the Area Source Boiler preamble/rule. It shows the changes made from the version sent to you on 12/17/2012.

EO 12866 NESHAP for Area Sources ICI Boilers 2060 -AR14_Redline_121712_v_121912.docx Thanks. Mary Mary Johnson Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Mail Code D 243 - 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541 - 5025 Fax: (919) 541 - 5450