alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3985

___________

Paul W. Oldham, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of the *

Army, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 6, 1998 

 Filed: February 10, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Paul W. Oldham appeals the district court&s grant of judgment to Togo D. West, 1

Jr., the Secretary of the Army, after a seven-day bench trial in Oldham&s employment

discrimination action.
-2-

We have carefully reviewed the record, including the trial transcript. We find

no clear error in the district court&s factual findings, as those findings were based on the

decision to credit the defense witnesses, each of whom told a “facially plausible story.”

See Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, Inc. v. Atchison, 126 F.3d 1042, 1048 (8th

Cir. 1997) (standard of review); Northgate Homes, Inc. v. City of Dayton, 126 F.3d

1095, 1101 (8th Cir. 1997) (where trial court&s factual findings “are based upon its

decision to credit the testimony of a witness or witnesses, each of whom has told a

coherent and facially plausible story which is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence,

the trial court&s findings, unless internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clearly

erroneous”; “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder&s

choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous” (internal quotations omitted)).

We further find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding

certain hearsay testimony of an unavailable witness, as that testimony was given at a

fact-finding hearing where the factfinder posed questions and defendant had neither an

opportunity nor the motive to develop testimony relevant to the issues in this case. See

Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) ; McKnight ex rel. Ludwig v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d

1396, 1410 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review for Rule 804(b)(1) decision).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# L_2023227EN.01004201.xml

| 14.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 227/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 227/42

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 174/2020

of 23 October 2020

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms [2023/1749]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 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 the operation and development of the internal market of goods and services and regarding internal market governance tools. |
| --- | --- |

(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 the operation and development of the internal market of goods and services and regarding internal market governance tools.

| (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 paragraphs 12 and 14 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

---
# EUR-Lex - 31979R2931 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31979R2931

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 2931/79 of 20 December 1979 on the granting of assistance for the exportation of agricultural products which may benefit from a special import treatment in a third country **

*
Official Journal L 334 , 28/12/1979 P. 0008 - 0008 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 11 P. 0171 Greek special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 17 P. 0066 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 11 P. 0171 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 17 P. 0062 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 17 P. 0062 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2931/79 of 20 December 1979 on the granting of assistance for the exportation of agricultural products which may benefit from a special import treatment in a third country

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 43 and 113 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas agricultural products may in certain cases benefit from a special import treatment in third countries if the products comply with certain specifications and/or price conditions ; whereas administrative cooperation between the authorities in the importing third country and the Community is necessary to ensure correct application of such a system ; whereas to this end the products should be accompanied by a certificate issued in the Community;

Whereas, in order to respect the abovementioned price conditions, the export refund system must be taken into consideration ; whereas detailed rules for the export refund system are adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 26 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1547/79 (2), and in the corresponding Articles in other Regulations on the common organization of markets;

whereas detailed rules for the application of the measures provided for in this Regulation should be adopted in accordance with the same procedure,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. When agricultural products are exported which may, in accordance with agreements concluded by the Community, benefit from a special treatment on importation into a third country if certain conditions are respected, the competent authorities of the Member States shall, on demand and after appropriate checks, issue a document certifying that the conditions are met.

2. Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 26 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 and in the corresponding Articles in other Regulations on the common organization of markets.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 1979.

For the Council

The President

J. TUNNEY (1)OJ No L 281, 1.11.1975, p. 1. (2)OJ No L 188, 26.7.1979, p. 1.
#### § 727.2 What are the definitions of the terms used in this part?

For purposes of this part:

*Authorized investigative agency* means an agency authorized by law or regulation to conduct a counterintelligence investigation or investigations of persons who are proposed for access to classified information to ascertain whether such persons satisfy the criteria for obtaining and retaining access to such information.

*Computer* means desktop computers, portable computers, computer networks (including the DOE network and local area networks at or controlled by DOE organizations), network devices, automated information systems, or other related computer equipment owned by, leased, or operated on behalf of the DOE.

*DOE* means the Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear Security Administration.

*DOE computer* means any computer owned by, leased, or operated on behalf of the DOE.

*Individual* means an employee of DOE or a DOE contractor, or any other person who has been granted access to a DOE computer or to information on a DOE computer, and does not include a member of the public who sends an e-mail message to a DOE computer or who obtains information available to the public on DOE Web sites.

*User* means any person, including any individual or member of the public, who sends information to or receives information from a DOE computer.
§ 1108.10 Acquire. *Acquire* means to: ( a ) When the term is used in connection with a DoD Component action at the prime tier, obtain property or services by purchase, lease, or barter for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government.
( b ) When the term is used in connection with a recipient action or a subrecipient action at a tier under a DoD Component's award: ( 1 ) Purchase services;
( 2 ) Obtain property under the award by: ( i ) Purchase;
( ii ) Construction;
( iii ) Fabrication;
( iv ) Development;
( v ) The recipient's or subrecipient's donation of the property to the project or program under the award to meet a cost-sharing or matching requirement (*i.e.,* including within the entity's share of the award's project costs the value of the remaining life of the property or its fair market value, rather than charging depreciation); or
( vi ) Otherwise.
Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00774-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 08/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
222 So.2d 64

#### Arthur CARTER v. Catherine FOREMAN, wife of/and Jerome Foreman Community Construction Company, Inc. and Clover Investment Corporation.

No. 49769.

May 9, 1969.

In re: Arthur Carter applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 219 So.2d 21.

The application is denied. There appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
2007-1755.

#### State v. Brewer.

Cuyahoga App. No. 87701, 2007-Ohio-3407 and 2007-Ohio-4291.

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.
2007-2023.

#### Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc.

Summit App. No. 23422, 2007-Ohio-4805. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 3 of the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed October 24, 2007:

“Whether in an action for temporary damages to noncommercial real property, a failure to prove *1472the difference between the fan’ market value of the whole property just before the damage was done and immediately thereafter is fatal to the claim.”

O’Donnell, J., dissents.

The conflict cases are *Adcock v. Rollins Protective Servs. Co.*(1981), 1 Ohio App.3d 160, and *Krofta v. Stallard,*Cuyahoga App. No. 85369, 2005-Ohio-3720.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2007-2024, *Martin v. Design Constr. Sews., Inc.,*Summit App. No. 23422, 2007-Ohio-4805.
#### ORSOLINA, Respondent, v. RUGGIERO et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 27, 1914.)

Action by Maria Orsolina against John Ruggiero and others.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Cut along the white area, fold along black line > 

< Cut along the white area, fold along black line
223 So.2d 869

#### Clarence DUPLANTIS v. HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 49908.

June 27, 1969.

In re: Highlands Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 221 So.2d 623.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
#### John NASH *v.*ARKANSAS ELEVATOR SAFETY BOARD and Arkansas Department of Labor

06-1257

257 S.W.3d 80

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered May 17, 2007

*Nash Law Firm,*by; *John Nash,*for appellant.

*Denise P. Oxley,*for appellee Arkansas Dep’t of Labor.

Per Curiam.

This appeal arises from an order from the Pulaski County Circuit Court affirming the February 22, 2005 and June 24, 2005 orders of Appellee Arkansas Elevator Safety Board (Board). Both orders were issued by the Board in response to a request filed by Appellant John Nash with respect to a freight elevator located in a Little Rock warehouse. We order Nash to rebrief.

We do not reach the merits of Nash’s appeal because of his failure to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1 (2006). We may raise issues of deficiencies sua sponte. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2006); *Unum Life Ins. Co. of America v. Edwards,*361 Ark. 150, 205 S.W.3d 126 (2005). Under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1 (a), “[b]riefs shall be double-spaced, except for quoted material, which may be single-spaced and indented.” Upon our review of Nash’s brief, the line spacing appears to be between single-spaced and double-spaced. In other words, his brief has thirty lines per page while Appellees’ brief has twenty-two lines per page. Thus, the effect of Nash’s spacing gives him more than the requisite twenty-five pages of text without having first sought our permission to file an overlarge brief. *See*Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1(b).

*87For these reasons, we order rebriefmg. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-1 (d) (2006) provides that “[b]riefs not in compliance with this Rule shall not be accepted by the Clerk.” Nash has seven days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted brief to conform to Rule 4-1. *See*Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4~2(c) (2006). If Nash resubmits a compliant brief within seven days, then our Clerk shall accept the brief. *Id.*

Rebriefmg ordered.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-5 Leaf Gas Exchange DataThe BOREAS TE-5 team collected measurements in the NSA and SSA on gas exchange, gas composition, and tree growth. The leaf photosynthetic gas exchange data were collected in the BOREAS NSA and the SSA from 06-Jun- 1994 to 13-Sep- 1994 using a LI-COR 6200 portable photosynthesis system. The data were collected to compare the photosynthetic capacity, stomata] conductance, and leaf intercellular CO, concentrations among the major tree species at the BOREAS sites. The data are average values from diurnal measurements on the upper canopy foliage (sun leaves). The data are available in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Activity Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010005746Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Curd, Shelaine*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Ehleriinger, Jim*(Utah Univ. Salt Lake City, UT United States)*Brooks, J. Renee*(University of South Florida Tampa, FL United States)*Flanagan, Larry*(Lethbridge Univ. Lethbridge, Alberta Canada)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:209891/VOL138Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL138NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL138Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010005746.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 501.100 Purpose and scope. ( a ) Anyone may request that OFE commence a rulemaking proceeding pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(e); however, this subpart provides the procedures to be followed by— ( 1 ) An interested person seeking the modification or rescission of a prohibition by rule applicable to a new facility;
( 2 ) An owner or operator of a facility named in a prohibition by rule requesting the modification or rescission of that rule; or
( 3 ) An owner or operator subject to an exemption order or a specific prohibition imposed by order requesting the modification or a rescission of that order.
( b ) OFE also may commence a modification or rescission proceeding on its own initiative.
### Page 1 of 3 Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 201 3

- 0 364 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 201 1

- NM

- 1 14

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM



### N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.



### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes,

lis t latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o f the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree w ith because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3 If NO

, we don’t agree because

For additional issues, do uble

- click here

### Page 3 of 3 S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch Man ager Date
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 645 

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit 

to the House of Representatives all information in the possession of 

the President or the Secretary of Defense relating to the collection 

of intelligence information pertaining to persons inside the United States 

without obtaining court-ordered warrants authorizing the collection of 

such information and relating to the policy of the United States with 

respect to the gathering of counterterrorism intelligence within the 

United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2005 

Mr. WEXLER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives all 

information in the possession of the President or the 

Secretary of Defense relating to the collection of intelligence information pertaining to persons inside the 

United States without obtaining court-ordered warrants 

authorizing the collection of such information and relating to the policy of the United States with respect to 

the gathering of counterterrorism intelligence within the 

United States. 

1 Resolved, That— 
2 

•HRES 645 IH 

1 (1) the President is requested to transmit to 

2 the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days 

3 after the date of the adoption of this resolution, all 

4 documents, including telephone and electronic mail 

5 records, logs, calendars, minutes, and memos, in the 

6 possession of the President relating to— 

7 (A) the scope of the activities undertaken 

8 by the Department of Defense, the Counter9 intelligence Field Activity, or any related agen10 cy with regard to Threat and Local Observation 

11 Notice reports (TALONs); and 

12 (B) the legal authority upon which surveil13 lance by the National Security Agency or the 

14 Department of Defense of persons inside the 

15 United States and the gathering of 

16 counterterrorism intelligence within the United 

17 States without obtaining court-ordered warrants 

18 is based; and 

19 (2) the Secretary of Defense is directed to 

20 transmit to the House of Representatives, not later 

21 than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this 

22 resolution, all documents, including telephone and 

23 electronic mail records, logs, calendars, minutes, 

24 memos, and records of internal discussions, in the 

25 possession of the Secretary relating to— 
3 

•HRES 645 IH 

1 (A) the scope of the activities undertaken 

2 by the Department of Defense, the Counter3 intelligence Field Activity, or any related agen4 cy with regard to Threat and Local Observation 

5 Notice reports; and 

6 (B) the legal authority upon which surveil7 lance by the National Security Agency or the 

8 Department of Defense of persons inside the 

9 United States and the gathering of 

10 counterterrorism intelligence within the United 

11 States without obtaining court-ordered warrants 

12 is based. 

Æ
#### In the Matter of James Neville, as Executor of Eugene F. Martin, Jr., Deceased, Holder of One-Half of All Outstanding Shares Entitled to Vote in an Election of Directors, Respondent, v Marie Therese Martin, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 91]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered February 17, 2006, granting the petition to dissolve respondent T.E.G. Management Corporation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The grant of the dissolution petition pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1104 (a) (2) was proper given the record evidence of dissension between the two 50% shareholders of the subject close corporation. This evidence left no doubt that the *445corporation could not continue to function effectively *(see Matter of Gordon & Weiss,*32 AD2d 279, 281 [1969]). That the dissension had no appreciable impact on the firm’s profitability was not a sufficient ground for the petition’s denial *(see*Business Corporation Law § 1111 [b] [3]; *Molod v Berkowitz,*233 AD2d 149, 150 [1996], *lv dismissed*89 NY2d 1029 [1997]). Since there was no real dispute that dissension and deadlock existed, no hearing was necessary *(see Matter of Gordon & Weiss,*32 AD2d at 280). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.