alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20012 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO RIOJAS, JR.; DAVID CANTU; PEDRO MORENO; RAMIRO RIOJAS; LUIS MORENO; LAZARO MORENO; IRELA YVETTE RIOJAS GONZALEZ; MELBA RIOJAS MORENO; ROSANNA RIOJAS GUERRERO; JOSE LUIS CANTU; EDUARDO MORENO; RENE GONZALEZ; CESAR MORENO, SR.; RENATO RIOJAS; a/k/a Renato Riojas-Sandoval, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CR-142

- - - - - - - - - - July 11, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Rosanna Riojas Guerrero (“Guerrero”) appeals the district court’s order revoking the magistrate judge’s order of release pending trial. Although we find that the district court erred in applying the statutory presumption of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) to Guerrero because she is not charged with any offensesin violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the Controlled

Substances Import and Export Act, the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, or 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), we may still affirm the district court’s order if the evidence at the detention hearing as a whole supports the conclusion of the district court. See United States v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Trosper , 809 F.2d 1107, 1111 (5th Cir.1987)), cert. denied , 507 U.S. 940 (1993). We find that it does.

Guerrero is charged with conspiracy to launder monetary instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956-1601 (Count 5), money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956-1601 (Counts 159-160), conspiracy to evade currency reporting requirements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 92), and structuring financial transactions to avoid currency reporting requirements in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (Count 168).

As the district court found, the underlying criminal activity for these charges stem from illegal drug trafficking activities involving two families who allegedly operate a very sophisticated and lucrative drug operation. Guerrero is the daughter of the leader of one of the families, the Riojas family. Her husband, Eutiquio Guerrero, Jr., is the son of a convicted drug dealer who lives in Mexico. As such, she has very close ties to the criminal organization. She was recorded discussing with her father methods by which to launder money proceeds fromthe criminal enterprise in order to avoid currency reporting

requirements. Other co-indictees were recorded dialing Guerrero’s pager number. She lives very close to the border of Mexico.

The district court did not err in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Guerrero would continue to commit drug trafficking or related crimes if she were released and, therefore, poses a danger to the community and is a flight risk. The district court’s detention order as to Rosanna Guerrero is AFFIRMED.
No. 76-1447.

#### Murray et al. *v.*Wagle.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education*v. *Doyle,*429 U. S. 274 (1977).

Mr. Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Stevens would deny certiorari.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8944-8945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3992]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 25, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Premier Commerce Bancorp, Inc., Palos Hills, Illinois; to become 
a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of 
G.R. Bancorp, Ltd., Grand Ridge, Illinois, and thereby indirectly 
acquire voting shares of The First National Bank of Grand Ridge, Grand 
Ridge, Illinois.


[[Page 8945]]


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 23, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-3992 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
# C_2017038EN.01002501.xml

| 6.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-548/14) (1)

1

((Customs Union - Imports of tuna products originating in Ecuador - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Request for waiver of recovery of import duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Notice to importers published in the Official Journal - Good faith - Application for the remission of import duties - Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92))

(2017/C 038/33)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, abogado del Estado)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Arenas, A. Caeiros, and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 2 of Decision C(2014) 3007 final of the Commission of 15 May 2014 finding that the remission of import duties is justified for a certain amount and that remission of import duties is not justified for another amount in a particular case (REM 03/2013).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2014) 3007 final of the Commission of 15 May 2014 finding that the remission of import duties is justified for a certain amount and that remission of import duties is not justified for another amount in a particular case (REM 03/2013); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls Article 2 of Decision C(2014) 3007 final of the Commission of 15 May 2014 finding that the remission of import duties is justified for a certain amount and that remission of import duties is not justified for another amount in a particular case (REM 03/2013);

| 2. | orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

1

---
#### § 82.1322 D&C Red No. 22.

The color additive D&C Red No. 22 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1322 (a)(1) and (b) of this chapter.

[47 FR 53847, Nov. 30, 1982]
§ 556.165 Cloxacillin. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerance for cloxacillin is: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* Edible tissues: 0.01 ppm.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 526.464 and 526.465 of this chapter.
[84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 18121, Apr. 1, 2020; 86 FR 13188, Mar. 8, 2021]
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44606

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANDREW GARLOCK,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 444

Filed: April 21, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of fifteen years, for battery with the intent to commit a 

serious felony; concurrent unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a foreign 

object; and concurrent unified sentence of life imprisonment, with a minimum 

period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a foreign 

object, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Aaron J. Currin, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; MELANSON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Andrew Garlock pled guilty to battery with the intent to commit a serious felony, I.C. 

§§ 18-903 and 18-911, and two counts of penetration by a foreign object, I.C. § 18-6608. In 

exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced 

Garlock to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen 
2

years, for battery with the intent to commit a serious felony; a concurrent unified term of twenty 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a 

foreign object; and a concurrent unified term of life imprisonment, with a minimum period of 

confinement of fifteen years, for one count of penetration by a foreign object. Garlock filed an 

I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Garlock appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Garlock’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                            3521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19434
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1171
<INVENTORY>                                      15635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   432
<PP&E>                                           43950
<DEPRECIATION>                                   18746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   96088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            16140
<BONDS>                                          39921
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                       39960
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     96088
<SALES>                                          97636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 97636
<CGS>                                            68007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    20045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (137)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5514
<INCOME-TAX>                                       271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5243
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5243
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.0

   CERTIFICATION AS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
       ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Harrodsburg First Financial
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), we, Arthur L. Freeman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
and Jack D. Hood, Treasurer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted
pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Arthur L. Freeman                   /s/ Jack D. Hood
-------------------------------------   ------------------------------------
Arthur L. Freeman                       Jack D. Hood
President and Chief Executive Officer   Treasurer
                                        (Chief Financial and Accounting Officer)

December 23, 2003

                                       80
1 

### Nesky, Anthony

From: Rosencrantz, Ingrid

Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:06 AM

To: Nesky, Anthony

Subject: FW: 40 CFR 192 proposed revision has been signed - request for meeting

Needs to go into the docket

From: Fettus, Geoffrey [mailto:gfettus@nrdc.org]

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 2:39 PM

To: Peake, Tom; Larson, Lance

Cc: Rosencrantz, Ingrid; Nesky, Anthony; Cherepy, Andrea

Subject: 40 CFR 192 proposed revision has been signed

‐ request for meeting



### Tom & Ingrid,

Thanks so much for the heads up to both NRDC and indus try in early January, it was very helpful in preparing

for the work on the draft 40 CFR 192 this spring.

Per your draft, Dr. Lance Larson (NRDC Science Fellow) and myself request an opportunity to meet with you

and relevant staff on the draft ISL uranium recovery rule . We think there are some very good parts, but there are

several areas where we have questio ns and would much appreciate the op portunity to explore the agency’s

thinking. Except for Thursday (I am in NYC for work), next week is a great time for us to meet. Any chance we

can set aside an hour to talk? We are happy to come see you or we can host – please let us know some

convenient times. Thanks again,

Geoff Fettus

GEOFFREY H. FETTUS

Senior Attorney

NATURAL RESOURCES

DEFENSE COUNCIL

1152 15TH STREET NW, SUITE 300

WASHINGTON, DC 20005

T 202.289.2371

GFETTUS@NRDC.ORG

NRDC.ORG

Please save paper.

Think before printing.

From: Peake, Tom [ mailto:Peake.Tom@epa.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2015 2:01 PM

To: ksweeney@nma.org ; Fettus, Geoffrey

Cc: Rosencrantz, Ingrid; Nesky, Anthony; Cherepy, Andrea

Subject: 40 CFR 192 proposed revision has been signed2 Hello,

I have news for you to start the new year.

On December 31, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed a proposed

rule to strengthen the “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,” (40

Code of Federal Regulations Part 192 or 40 CFR 192) by adding new ground water protection standards for in

‐ situ

recovery (ISR) of uranium. The proposed standards apply to byproduct materials produced by uranium ISR, which has

overtaken conventional mining and milling as the dominant form of uranium recovery in the United States. The

standards proposed would be implemented by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, once finalized.

Attached are a pre

‐ publication version of the proposed rule and a fact sheet summarizing the proposal. The proposed

rule will be published in the Federal Register in the next few days, which will start a 90

‐ day public comment period. We

look forward to receiving your input.

If you have questions, please feel free to contact Ingrid Rosencrantz of my staff at rosencrantz.ingrid@epa.gov

, phone

202

‐ 343

‐ 9286 or me at peake.tom@epa.gov or 202

‐ 343

‐ 9765.

Also, if you are on our list serv email list, you will get another notification, but I wanted to let you now given your

interest.

Happy New Year!

Tom Peake

US EPA Radiation Protection Division

Director, Center for Waste Management and Regulations

phone: 202

‐ 343

‐ 9765
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
           from the Consolidated Balance Sheet and Consolidated Statement of
           Income included in the Company's Form 10-K for the period ended
           December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
           such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<CASH>                                            77,583
<SECURITIES>                                      23,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                     35,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                       1,820
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 146,574
<PP&E>                                            17,368
<DEPRECIATION>                                     4,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   162,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             37,645
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              25
<OTHER-SE>                                        55,707
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     162,739
<SALES>                                          117,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 117,346
<CGS>                                             23,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     23,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  93,817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,350
<INCOME-TAX>                                       8,308
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (6,958)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (6,958)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     ($0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     ($0.28)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

July 26 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk July 26 , 2017

15 6 1 4 6 ( 29 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 15 6 14 6

v COA: 33 6623

Wayne CC: 12

- 003375

- FC

BRANDON LEWIS CAIN

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. _____________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendant

- appellant to exceed the

page limitation of the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The application

submitted o n July 1 8 , 2017, is accepted for filing
§ 182.1129 Aluminum potassium sulfate. ( a ) *Product.* Aluminum potassium sulfate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
38937.

#### HUDGINS v. NELMS, Administratrix.

Decided June 19, 1961.

*2
      *Carl T. Hudgins,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Saul Blau,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

Defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions on the ground that there was no final judgment in the trial court from which to appeal. The motion is without merit. If the motion to vacate the judgment had been stricken, as contended for by plaintiff in error, it would have been an end to the matter, and a judgment overruling the motion to strike the motion to vacate is in the same category as the overruling of a general demurrer to' a petition.

Since the note did not specify the rate of interest or the date from which it was to run it must be calculated at seven percent per annum from maturity. Applying this rule and giving full effect to plaintiffs contention that the payments were to be applied against interest first, then to principal, and that the additional loan was to increase the principal of the note as of the date it was made, it is apparent from the face of the petition and the exhibit attached that the balance due on February 24, 1961, when judgment was entered, would amount to $481.11 principal, besides $197.11 interest. It does not appear that plaintiff wrote off or offered to write off the excess amount. While plaintiff might, if he chose, waive or reduce the amount of principal claimed, he could not claim interest beyond that which he is entitled to' have by law, and any judgment entered for an excessive amount, remaining in the breast of the court during the term at which it was rendered, not only could, but ought to have been vacated as was done here.

*3Nor was there any abuse of discretion in vacating the order striking defendant’s answer and plea of non est factum and permitting an amendment so as to bring it in compliance with the provisions of *Code*§§ 20-801, 24-3373 and 81-405.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P.J., and Nichols, J., concur.*