alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 KEVIN P. TREVOR,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. NO. A-1-CA-37040

5 LEEWYN R. TREVOR-BELTON,

6 Defendant-Appellee. 

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Beatrice J. Brickhouse, District Judge

9 Kevin P. Trevor

10 Tucson, AZ

11 Pro Se Appellant

12 Pregenzer Baysinger Wideman & Sale, PC

13 Marcy Gentry Baysinger

14 Albuquerque, NM

15 for Appellee

16 MEMORANDUM OPINION

17 HANISEE, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} AFFIRMED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 _______________________________

7 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 ___________________________________

10 HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judge

11 _________________________________

12 DANIEL J. GALLEGOS, Judge
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.5400 Low level laser system for aesthetic use ( a ) *Identification.* A Low Level Laser System for Aesthetic Use is a device using low level laser energy for the disruption of adipocyte cells within the fat layer for the release of fat and lipids from these cells for noninvasive aesthetic use.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is the FDA guidance document entitled “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Low Level Laser System for Aesthetic Use.” See § 878.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[76 FR 20842, Apr. 14, 2011]
137

ATM

Crude

Stills

1332

HDS

1332

Reformer

231

HDS

Gas

Blendin

1732

UDEX

1232

FCC

431

DEP

(down) 

431

DIB

1733

Cumene

137

VAC

PB

862

PB

210C

LT NaphthaLT Furnace OilHVY Furnace OilATM Gas Oil

ATB

Resid

#2 F.O.

#2 F.O.

LT VGOHVY VGO

Slurry Oil

VTB / Resid

C4 / C5 Prefact

Prefract Btms

C2 / C3 Deprop C3 / C4 Preprop

C4 / C5 Debut

C5 Depent

LCO

LSD Stock

HVY Cat NaphthaLT Cat Naphtha

BB

Alkylate

NC4 / C5

TX

BZ

Raffinate

PP 

C4

IC4

HVY Reformate

Benz. Conc.

Winter

PB

869 HPN

BB

PB

869 DIB

IC4

LSD

Crude

137 N/I C4

Process Flow DiagramPhiladelphia RefineryGirard Point

to 859

C4 to 431 Unit

C3 

Hvy Naphtha

to 859 & 866

to 870

PP 
210A/B

ATM

Crude

Stills

860

Reformer

864

Unifiner

865

Distillate 

HDS

869

DIB

862 

Light Ends

210C

Vacuum

Still

866

Hydrotreater 868 FCCU

869

HPN

859

HDS

210A 

VAC

Gasoline 

Blending

PB A

SW

GP A

Syst

LT NaphthaHvy NaphthaKerosene & Furnace Oil Stock

Crude

“A” Reduced Crude

Sour C5/C6

NC4C5

LGO

HGO

Resid

LCO BB

BTX

210860864865866

HVY Reformate

CAT Gasoline

C5/C6

IC4

BB

GP

1232

GP

1732

GP

1733

GP

433

870

LSGU

GP

1332 GP

137 C3 

1

Process Flow DiagramPhiladelphia RefineryPoint Breeze

from 137

From 1232
A Day in the Life of 

an NRC Resident 

Inspector

The NRC Resident Inspector is a specially 

trained nuclear power expert who lives in 

the community around the plant.

1
Even though they are employed by the 

NRC, the Resident Inspectors work at 

the plant site. But, strict rules require 

them to be independent and they can’t 

even socialize with plant employees.

2
As with everyone at the plant, the Inspector 

passes through security checkpoints.

3
Each morning, the Inspector visits the 

reactor’s Control Room and gets information 

on the plant status from the operators.

4
Resident Inspectors also attend the 

“Plan of the Day” meeting with plant 

officials to understand what plant 

activities are scheduled for that day.

5
The Inspector provides the plant status 

and safety information to the NRC 

Regional Office every morning.

6
Resident Inspectors (there are at least two 

at each site) prioritize their activities each 

day, with safety as the key measure. 

7
Resident Inspectors work as a team 

with other NRC experts to make sure 

the plant is following NRC rules. 

8
Inspectors meet with plant management on 

a regular basis to discuss plant safety issues 

found during their inspections. 

The Inspectors would immediately notify 

plant management if they identified an urgent 

safety issue. These inspection reports are 

available to the public each quarter. 

9
As part of their routine, Resident 

Inspectors walk through the plant 

and inspect plant facilities and 

operations. These inspections allow 

them to watch plant workers at their 

jobs.

10
Resident Inspectors also observe 

plant workers during emergency 

exercises. Inspectors watch to 

make sure everyone knows what 

they are supposed to do and are 

following NRC rules.

11
During a real emergency, Resident 

Inspectors work with plant 

employees to address the issue 

and report to NRC Headquarters 

what is happening at the plant. 

12
Plant workers can bring their concerns 

about plant management directly to 

the Resident Inspectors or submit them 

anonymously. These concerns are 

handled by the NRC allegation process.

13
NRC Resident Inspectors get the 

chance to inspect and visit other plants, 

because of their special skills and to put 

“fresh eyes” on other issues elsewhere. 

14
Inspectors have training opportunities to 

help them do their job better and prepare 

for another position in the NRC. They can 

only work at any one plant site for 7 years.

15
Resident Inspectors play a very important 

role for the NRC. They are the agency’s 

on-the-ground eyes and ears.

16
Have a 

safe day.

17
Stay Connected

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NUREG/BR-0512

April 2013
§ 808.55 California. The following California medical device requirements are preempted under section 521(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and FDA has denied them exemption from preemption: ( a ) *Medical devices; general provisions.* Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, Division 21 of the California Health and Safety Code, sections 26207, 26607, 26614, 26615, 26618, 26631, 26640, and 26441, to the extent that they apply to devices; and
( b ) *Ophthalmic devices; quality standards.* California Business and Professions Code, section 2541.3 to the extent that it requires adoption of the American National Standards Institute standards Z-80.1 and Z-80.2.
[87 FR 50762, Aug. 17, 2022]
#### §§ 1.179D-1-1.179D-2 [Reserved]
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2068

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Terrance Leon Pargo

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: October 29, 2013

Filed: November 6, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Terrance Pargo pleaded guilty to one count of failing to register as a sex

offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250. The district court imposed a sentence of 1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.
21 months in prison and 5 years ofsupervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved

to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

arguing that the district court erred in imposing, as a special condition of supervised

release, the requirement that Pargo undergo sex-offender treatment. The brief also

states that Pargo believes he was incorrectly classified as a Tier II sex offender for

purposes of calculating his advisory Guidelines sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the

supervised-release condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(3); United States v.

Schaefer, 675 F.3d 1122, 1124-25 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Specifically,

Pargo’s sex offense, although 14 years earlier, was against a minor, and his

subsequent repeated convictions for failure to register, and his absconding, reflected

impulsive behavior, poor decisionmaking, and a reluctance to comply with

registration requirements. See United States v. Walters, 643 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th

Cir. 2011) (requirements for district court to impose special condition of supervised

release); United States v. Smith, 655 F.3d 839, 845-46 (8th Cir. 2011) (requiring sexoffender treatment assupervised-release condition for new failure-to-register offense

was supported byrecord,which reflected history of avoiding sex-offender registration

and committing sex offense against minor), rev’d on other grounds, 132 S. Ct. 2712

(2012) (Mem.); United States v. Smart, 472 F.3d 556, 559 (8th Cir. 2006) (upholding

supervised-release condition requiring defendant to undergo sex-offender treatment

following conviction for being felon in possession of firearm, where defendant had

earlier state convictions for sex offenses). We also conclude that Pargo’s

classification as a Tier II sex offender was not plain error. See 42 U.S.C. § 16911(3)

(defining Tier II sex offender); Minn. Stat. § 609.345(1)(b) (1998) (defining criminal

sexual conduct in the fourth degree); United States v. Molnar, 590 F.3d 912, 914 (8th

Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

-2-
Finally, having reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw, and we affirm.

-3-
# C_2014303EN.01000302.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/3

---

Appeal brought on 20 February 2014 by Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2013 in Case T-389/13: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-101/14 P)

2014/C 303/05

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (represented by: P. Leander, T. Kronhöffer, advocates)

Appellant:

Other party: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party:

By order of 17 July 2014 the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
P.1 

RCRA Box 1883 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

103) ll-B-265 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/3/200810:42:17 AM Sheet 103 of 171 
> V 

MEMORANDUM — 

A-90-19 

ll-B-265 

P.2 

DATE: February 14, 1992 

TO: Project File 

FROM: Bennett King 

SUBJECT: Classification of Organic HAP's 

lijriiiLoX. 

k 

MAIR DOCKET J 

The Clean Air Act Amendments list of 189 HAP's included a 

number of compound classes. For purposes of the background 

information document, Volume IA, Chapter 3, Source Category 

Description and SOCMI Characterization, all chemicals or classes 

of compounds were identified as inorganic, organic, or both; 

'both' only applies to classes of compounds. 

Using Lanae's Handbook of Chemistry, compounds 

representing each class of compounds were looked up in the 

organic and inorganic sections of the book. Attachment 1 shows 

the page numbers in Lange's where representatives of each 

compound class were found. 

Coke oven emissions do not appear in Lange's or in similar 

readily available references. However, since coke oven emissions 

were not considered for the HON impact analysis, their 

classification as organic, inorganic, or both was not pursued 

further. For completeness sake, engineering judgment was used 

and Table 3-1 in Chapter 3 indicates that coke oven emissions are 

both organic and inorganic. 

cc: Project File 6.1 (M. Haley) 

Ruth Mead, Radian 

Julie Anne Probert, Radian 

Jan Meyer, EPA/SDB 

Lange, N.A. 1979, Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, 12th 

edition. J.A. Dean, ed. McGraw 
P.3 

ATTACHMENT Ti PAGE NUMBERS IN LANGE'S FOR EXAMPLE INORGANIC AND 

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 

Chemical Compounds Inorganic Page # Organic Page # 

Antimony compounds 4-23 7-88 

Arsenic compounds 4-24 7-88 

Beryllium compounds 4-28 7-102 

Cadmium compounds 4-31 7-120 

Chromium compounds 4-42 

Cobalt compounds 4-44 

Cyanide compounds 4-50 7-140 

Lead compounds 4-66 7-262 

Manganese compounds 4-71 

Mercury compounds 4-76 7-266 

Nickel compounds 4-81 

Selenium compounds 4-104 7-348
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ENTREE COPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE 40
WEEKS ENDED JANUARY 4, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-04-1997
<CASH>                                            1359
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1359
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1106
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4442)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4144
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (2384)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (227)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Director, Principal and Principal Executive Officer of C&M Management Inc, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                  | American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership
|----------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|                  |                                                   
|                  | By:                                               
|                  |                                                   
|                  |                                                   
|                  | By:                                               
|                  |                                                   
|                  |                                                   
|                  | By:                                               
|                  |                                                   
|                  |                                                   
|Date:             |                                                   
|November 20, 2003 | By:                                               
|                  |                                                   
|                  |                                                   
|                  |
# C_2014245EN.01000301.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-195/14)

2014/C 245/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Applicant:

Defendant: Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is it permissible for the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs to give the impression, by means of their appearance, description or pictorial representation, that a particular ingredient is present, even though that ingredient is not in fact present and this is apparent solely from the list of ingredients provided for under Article 3(1)(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC (1)?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), as most recently amended by Council Directive 2013/20/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 234).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 6/30/97 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         774,667
<SECURITIES>                                   220,009
<RECEIVABLES>                                  820,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                    48,000
<INVENTORY>                                    581,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,412,766
<PP&E>                                       4,451,591
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,158,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,751,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          692,113
<BONDS>                                      1,415,985
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,374,754
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,231,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,751,071
<SALES>                                      2,887,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,112,025
<CGS>                                        1,322,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  951,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                770,885
<INCOME-TAX>                                   298,585
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            472,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   472,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
#### § 516.11 Scope of this subpart.

This subpart implements section 573 of the act. Specifically, this subpart sets forth the procedures and requirements for submissions to FDA of requests for designation of a new animal drug for a minor use or a minor species.