alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served: December 23 , 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. 

### Special Rules for Ronal d Reagan Washington National Airport (Within Perimeter Exemptions, i.e., Service to Another Airport 1,250 Miles Away or Less from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport) (Docket DOT - OST - 2000 - 7182)

Notice of Transfer of Within - Perimeter Slots at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to Southwest Airlines Co. due to its Merger with AirTran Airways Inc.

NOTICE This Notice updates the record concerning slot exemptions issued to AirTran Airways Inc. (AirTran). Prior to its 2011 ac quisition by Southwest Airlines Co . (Southwest), AirTran held six within

perimeter slot exemptions at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 st Century and the Vision 100

- Century of Aviation Act
. 1 AirTran utilized these exemptions to provide two daily round trips between DCA and Atlanta and one daily round trip between DCA and Fort Myers, Florida. 2 Since 201 1 , Southwest has been working to complete the operational its merger with AirTran
. As permitted by 49 U.S.C. 41714 (j), the DCA exemptions that had been awarded to AirTran are now held and operated by Southwest , under the same terms and conditions
. We shall serve this Notice on all persons on the service list for this docket.

1 See Orders 2003

- 1

- 6 (Jan. 22, 2003), 2004

- 4

- 2 (April 1, 2004), 2004

- 8

- 27 (Aug. 27, 2004), 2007

- 5

- 12 (May 23, 2007), Docket DOT

- OST

- 2000

- 7182. 2 The Department had also granted an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 41714(d) to AirTran to operate two slots, used for s ervice to Atlanta, at new times (a slot slide). The exemption pertaining to those slots remains in effect for Southwest. See Order 2008

- 3

- 25 (March 28, 2008), Docket DOT

- OST

- 2003

- 15968.
The Honora ble Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3108

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Leo G. Willis, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 4, 1998 Filed: February 9, 1998

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Leo G. Willis appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his 1 guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Willis & s counsel fileda b rief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising error s re latedto the district court & s criminal history calculation; counsel has moved t o withdraw. We affirm.-2-

Reviewing the district court & s constructi on and interpretation of Chapter Four of the U. S. Sentencing Guidelines de novo, see United States v. Jones , 87 F.3d 247, 248 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 374 (1996), we agree that th e convictions represented in paragraphs 53 and 55 of Willis & s presentence report wer e separate, as the offenses occurred a year apart, were separated by an intervening arrest, and were prosecuted under separate do cket numbers. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3) (1997); United States v. Aguilera , 48 F.3d 327, 330 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 117 (1995); United States v. McComber , 996 F.2d 946, 947 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam).
We also a gree that--because Willis stipulated to his participation in th e conspiracy from October 1994 until July 1996, and because he was sentenced on his sta te convictions in September 1995 and paroled in January 1996--Willis committe d the pr esent offense while he was under a criminal justice sentence, and within tw o years af ter his release from imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 4A1.1(d),(e) (1997); cf. United States v . Early , 77 F.3d 242, 244 (8th Cir.1996) (per cu riam) (defendant who did not challenge plea agreement was bound by stipulation s therein); United States v. Tolson , 988 F.2d 1494, 1499-1501 (7th Cir . 1993) (defendant who plea ded guilty to conspiracy spanning specific dates properly received criminal history points under § 4A1.1(d) for committing conspiracy while on probation). Having carefully reviewed counsel’s submission and the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues fo r appeal. Counsel & s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### In the Matter of Leonard Telesco, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate. Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 780]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

After petitioner failed to provide a urine specimen for urinalysis testing within the three-hour time period allotted, he was charged in a misbehavior report with failing to comply with urinalysis testing procedures. He was found guilty of the charge at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and the determination was upheld on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Petitioner contends that he was unable to provide a urine specimen because he suffers from an enlarged prostate and that, therefore, the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We find this argument unpersuasive. A nurse familiar with petitioner’s medical condition testified that, although petitioner’s enlarged prostate affected the flow of urination, it did not prevent him from being able to produce the small sample of urine needed for testing. This testimony, together with the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer who authored it, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination *(see Matter of Levy v Goord,*22 AD3d 929 [2005]; *Matter of Infante v Selsky,*21 AD3d 633, 634 [2005]). In addition, we find no merit to petitioner’s remaining claims, including his assertion that he was improperly denied the right to call another nurse as a witness as he never made such a request at the hearing and, in any event, such testimony would have been redundant in light of the other evidence presented *(see Matter of Kavazanjian v Goord,*264 AD2d 886, 886 [1999]).

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.204 Permissible molybdenum-99, strontium-82, and strontium-85 concentrations. ( a ) A licensee may not administer to humans a radiopharmaceutical that contains: ( 1 ) More than 0.15 kilobecquerel of molybdenum-99 per megabecquerel of technetium-99m (0.15 microcurie of molybdenum-99 per millicurie of technetium-99m); or
( 2 ) More than 0.02 kilobecquerel of strontium-82 per megabecquerel of rubidium-82 chloride injection (0.02 microcurie of strontium-82 per millicurie of rubidium-82 chloride); or more than 0.2 kilobecquerel of strontium-85 per megabecquerel of rubidium-82 chloride injection (0.2 microcurie of strontium-85 per millicurie of rubidium-82).
( b ) A licensee that uses molybdenum-99/technetium-99m generators for preparing a technetium-99m radiopharmaceutical shall measure the molybdenum-99 concentration in each eluate from a generator to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) A licensee that uses a strontium-82/rubidium-82 generator for preparing a rubidium-82 radiopharmaceutical shall, before the first patient use of the day, measure the concentration of radionuclides strontium-82 and strontium-85 to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) If a licensee is required to measure the molybdenum-99 concentration or strontium-82 and strontium-85 concentrations, the licensee shall retain a record of each measurement in accordance with § 35.2204.
( e ) The licensee shall report any measurement that exceeds the limits in paragraph (a) of this section at the time of generator elution, in accordance with § 35.3204.
[67 FR 20370, Apr. 24, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 55932, Oct. 1, 2007; 83 FR 33107, July 16, 2018]
Order entered March 25, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 01 519

- CR

DERRICK BRYAN ALLEN

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Co urt Cause No. 380

- 82591

- 2011



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any

other reason.

• The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

• If the trial court determines that appellant desires to pro secute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it sha ll determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal.• The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can

be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Cour t within THIRTY

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1144 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1144

   Recognizing November 24, 2018, as ``Small Business Saturday'' and 
supporting efforts to increase awareness of the value of locally owned 
                           small businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2018

 Mr. Chabot (for himself, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Adams, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. 
Lawson of Florida, Mrs. Radewagen, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Schneider, Mr. 
 Fitzpatrick, Mr. Brat, Mr. Evans, Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico, 
   Mr. Curtis, Ms. Judy Chu of California, Mr. Norman, Mr. Blum, Mr. 
 Marshall, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Knight, Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mr. 
  Balderson, Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Higgins of New 
  York, Ms. Pingree, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Schweikert, Ms. 
Norton, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Kelly of 
    Illinois, Mr. Tipton, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, Mr. 
    Moulton, Mr. Stivers, and Ms. Bonamici) submitted the following 
   resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing November 24, 2018, as ``Small Business Saturday'' and 
supporting efforts to increase awareness of the value of locally owned 
                           small businesses.

Whereas there are over 30,200,000 small businesses in the United States;
Whereas small businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses with employees 
        in the United States;
Whereas small businesses employ nearly 48 percent of the employees in the 
        private sector in the United States;
Whereas small businesses pay 40.8 percent of the total payroll of the employees 
        in the private sector in the United States;
Whereas small businesses constitute nearly 98 percent of firms exporting goods;
Whereas small businesses generated 1,900,000 net new jobs; and
Whereas November 24, 2018, is an appropriate day to designate as ``Small 
        Business Saturday'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes and encourages the observance of ``Small 
        Business Saturday''; and
            (2) supports efforts--
                    (A) to encourage consumers to shop locally; and
                    (B) to increase awareness of the value of locally 
                owned small businesses and the impact of locally owned 
                small businesses on the economy of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2023227EN.01004301.xml

| 14.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 227/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 227/43

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 175/2020

of 23 October 2020

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms [2023/1750]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | It is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in Union actions funded from the general budget of the Union regarding company law. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

It is appropriate to continue the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the EEA Agreement in Union actions funded from the general budget of the Union regarding company law.

| (2) | Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for that extended cooperation to take place from 1 January 2020, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for that extended cooperation to take place from 1 January 2020,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In paragraph 13 of Article 7 of Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, the words “and 2019” are replaced by the words “, 2019 and 2020”.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement (*1).

It shall apply from 1 January 2020.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 23 October 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### In the Matter of the Society of New York Hospital, as Attorney in Fact for James Rodgers, Petitioner, v Blanche Bernstein, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Motion granted to the extent of amending the order of this court, entered on January 31, 1980 and the memorandum decision filed therewith [73 AD2d 906], by deleting the period at the end of said order and at the end of the first paragraph of said memorandum decision, and adding the following: "to respondent New York City Department of Social Services for a determination of eligibility.” Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Fein, Ross and Lupiano, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the invention set forth in U.S. Patent 6,254,873 which issued July 3, 2001, entitled “Inactivated Dengue Virus Vaccine,” and U.S. Patent 6,190,859, entitled “Method and Kit for Detection of Dengue Virus,” issued February 20, 2001. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army, has rights to this invention.

# ADDRESSES:

Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The invention relates to an inactivated dengue virus vaccine to immunize and protect humans against dengue fever. The vaccine is based on dengue viruses which have been propagated to high titers in suitable cells, purified and inactivated under conditions which destroy infectivity but preserve immunogenicity, a high level of which is demonstrated in animal models. Uses of the inactivated dengue virus for detecting antibodies to dengue and kits therefore are also described.

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-32235 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
#### § 50.101 Retaking possession of special nuclear material.

Upon revocation of a license, the Commission may immediately cause the retaking of possession of all special nuclear material held by the licensee.

[21 FR 355, Jan. 19, 1956, as amended at 40 FR 8790, Mar. 3, 1975]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000812076
<NAME>                        TOPPS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1998
<CASH>                                          26,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,211
<INVENTORY>                                     14,217
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,803
<PP&E>                                          14,656
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,911
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,668
<BONDS>                                          9,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              475
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,073
<SALES>                                         53,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,009
<CGS>                                           31,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,542
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    60
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,729
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,033
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,696
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,696
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

BYRON YOUNG

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3565

[ May 26, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara R. Duffy

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 09

- 7400CF10A

.

Byron Young, Wewahitchka, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, D AMOORGIAN

, and K LINGE NSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### HOOD et al. v. McGEHEE et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 22, 1912.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama; Win. I. Grubb, Judge.

Augustus Benners, of Birmingham, Ala., and Francis P. Pace and Samuel Proskauer, both of New York, N. Y., for appellants.

John P. Tillman, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellees.

Before PABDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and MEEK, District Judge.

PEB CUBIAM.

On the record we reach the same conclusion as the-judge of the lower court (189 Fed. 205), and we are constrained to affirm the decree appealed from. It is so ordered.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

402 

KA 12-02201 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JACOB E. WARE, III, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Farkas, J.), rendered July 12, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §

140.25 [2]). Although the record establishes that defendant

knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal

(see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we conclude that the

valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge

to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the

record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of

defendant’s right to appeal” with respect to his conviction that he

was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity

of the sentence (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862, lv denied 21

NY3d 1076; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928). Nevertheless, on

the merits, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or

severe.

Entered: May 9, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court