alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2020247EN.01002401.xml

| 31.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/24

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/1134

of 30 July 2020

amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 on Union outreach activities in support of the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28(1) and 31(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 29 May 2017, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 29 May 2017, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 (1).

| (2) | Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 provides for an implementation period of 36 months for the activities referred to in Article 1 of that Decision from the date of conclusion of the financing agreements referred to in Article 3(3) thereof. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 provides for an implementation period of 36 months for the activities referred to in Article 1 of that Decision from the date of conclusion of the financing agreements referred to in Article 3(3) thereof.

| (3) | On 22 and 29 June 2020 respectively, the German Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) and Expertise France, in their respective capacities as implementing agencies, requested an extension of the implementation period of Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 until 30 June 2021, due to challenges arising from the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 22 and 29 June 2020 respectively, the German Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) and Expertise France, in their respective capacities as implementing agencies, requested an extension of the implementation period of Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 until 30 June 2021, due to challenges arising from the continuing COVID-19 pandemic.

| (4) | The continuation of the activities referred to in Article 1 of Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 does not have any implication as regards financial resources until 30 June 2021. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The continuation of the activities referred to in Article 1 of Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 does not have any implication as regards financial resources until 30 June 2021.

| (5) | Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 5 of Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 is hereby replaced by the following:

‘Article 5

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

It shall expire on 30 June 2021.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 30 July 2020.

For the Council

The President

M. ROTH

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 of 29 May 2017 on Union outreach activities in support of the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty (OJ L 139, 30.5.2017, p. 38).

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Gomez, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 425]

Judgment Supreme *174Court, New York County (Philip M. Grella, J.), rendered September 4, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility, including the plausibility of the police account of the drug transaction, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

We find the sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.

McGuire, J., dissents in a memorandum as follows: I respectfully dissent. As a second felony offender, defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of from 6 to 12 years. This sentence was slightly in excess of the minimum sentence prescribed by the Legislature of 4V2 to 9 years. To be specific, the increase (IV2 years) in the minimum term the court imposed over the lowest authorized minimum term is less than 20% of the maximum increase (eight years) the court could have imposed. Defendant now asks this Court to exercise its discretion and sentence him to a term “closer to the minimum” but does not present any facts or arguments that were not made to the sentencing judge, who also presided over defendant’s trial. Especially given that defendant was on probation at the time he committed this felony, I fail to see any basis for granting the relief defendant seeks. In addition, after defendant was sentenced the Legislature enacted reforms to the so-called “Rockefeller Drug Laws,” including provisions of law that may enable defendant to gain his release earlier than otherwise would be permissible (L 2004, ch 738, § 30). More important, although this Court has held repeatedly that sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court *(see e.g. People v Junco,*43 AD2d 266, 268 [1974], *affd*35 NY2d 419 [1974], *cert denied*421 US 951 [1975]), that long-settled principle is trivialized by the kind of exquisite appellate fine-tuning that defendant claims is warranted in the interest of justice.
```

[Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 104)]
[Notices]               
[Page 30386]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jn10-55]                         

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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting for EAC Board of Advisors.

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

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. and
    Thursday, June 17, 2010, 9 a.m.-5:30 p.m. and
    Friday, June 18, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.

PLACE:  Phoenix Park Hotel, 520 North Capitol Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20001, phone number (202) 638-6900.

PURPOSE:  The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Board of 
Advisors, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, will meet 
to receive updates on EAC program activities. The Board will receive 
updates on Voting System Testing and Certification programs, including 
UOCAVA Pilot Program Voting Systems. The Board will receive a 
presentation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology on 
UOCAVA Voting Systems Threat Analysis. The Board will receive updates 
on research and studies, including draft election management 
guidelines: chapters on Technology in Elections, Elections Office 
Administration and Accessibility. The Board will receive an update on 
an EAC Clearinghouse. The Board will receive updates on the EAC Grants 
programs. The Board will hear committee reports, elect officers and 
consider other administrative matters.
    Members of the public may observe but not participate in EAC 
meetings unless this notice provides otherwise. Members of the public 
may use small electronic audio recording devices to record the 
proceedings. The use of other recording equipment and cameras requires 
advance notice to and coordination with the EAC's Communications 
Office.*
    * View EAC Regulations Implementing Government in the Sunshine Act.
    This meeting will be open to the public.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:  Bryan Whitener, telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

Gracia M. Hillman,
Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-13114 Filed 5-27-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose GARCIA-ARAIZA, aka Fernando Velasquez-Camarillo aka Jose Garcia-Ariaza aka Jose Parisa Juarez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-10564.

D.C. No. CR-98-00348-JMR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 21, 2001.

*442Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM2

Jose Garcia-Araiza appeals his 100-month sentence imposed following conviction after a jury trial to a single count of being found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We affirm but remand with instructions to correct the judgment.

Garcia-Araiza contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a continuance of the sentencing hearing to enable him to obtain a psychologist to testify concerning his diminished mental capacity. We review for abuse of discretion, *United States v. Lewis,*991 F.2d 524, 528 (9th Cir.1993), and disagree.

The pre-sentence report indicated that a downward departure for diminished capacity would not be appropriate given his voluntary drug use. However, the presentence report stated that diminished capacity could be a mitigating factor warranting a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13. At the sentencing hearing, Garcia-Araiza did not object to the pre-sentence report and conceded that a departure for diminished capacity would be inappropriate. Moreover, he was sentenced at the low end of the applicable range, as he requested. Because Garcia-Araiza cannot show prejudice to his position regarding sentencing, he cannot establish that the district court abused its discretion. *Lewis,*991 F.2d at 528 (holding that the appellant must show the denial prejudiced his defense).

We note that, in addition to § 1326(a), the district court’s judgment references 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), which does not define a separate crime. *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 226, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); *United States v. Alviso,*152 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.1998). We therefore, AFFIRM the *443sentence, but REMAND with instructions to correct the written judgment by striking the reference to § 1326(b)(2) so that the judgment will unambiguously reflect that Garcia-Araiza was convicted of only one punishable offense pursuant to § 1326(a). 28 U.S.C. § 2106; *United States v. Rivera-Sanchez,*222 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.2000).3

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

3

. All pending motions are denied.
# L_2020148EN.01000301.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 148/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 148/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/630

of 6 May 2020

conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ (PDO)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission examined Spain’s application to register the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ and published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission examined Spain’s application to register the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ and published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ (PDO) is hereby protected.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 6 May 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 35, 3.2.2020, p. 11.

2

---
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 205.4 Are there any circumstances where a Federal assistance program that meets the criteria of § 205.3 would not be subject to this subpart A? ( a ) A Federal assistance program that meets or exceeds the threshold for major Federal assistance programs in a State is not subject to this subpart A until it is included in a Treasury-State agreement or in default procedures.
( b ) We and a State may agree to exclude components of a major Federal assistance program from interest calculations if the State administers the program through several State agencies and meets the following requirements: ( 1 ) The dollar amount of the exempted cash flow does not exceed 5% of the State's major Federal assistance program threshold and the total amount excluded under a single program by all State agencies administering the program does not exceed 10% of that Federal assistance program's total expenditures;
( 2 ) If less than the total amount of Federal assistance program funding is subject to interest calculation procedures, the interest liabilities should be pro-rated to 100% of the Federal assistance program funding;
( 3 ) A State may not use this exclusion if a Federal assistance program is administered by only one State agency; and
( 4 ) We may request Federal assistance program specific data on funding levels to determine exemptions.
( c ) We and a State may exclude a Federal assistance program from this subpart A if the Federal assistance program has been discontinued since the most recent Single Audit and the remaining funding is below the threshold, or if the Federal assistance program is funded by an award not limited to one fiscal year and the remaining Federal assistance program funding is below the State's threshold.
§ 34.602 Use of funds and eligible activities—NOAA RESTORE Act Science Program. ( a ) Amounts made available to NOAA may be expended to carry out a program comprised of activities described in section 1604 of the Act. These activities include coordination of science and technology programs and stakeholder engagement, in accordance with section 1604(f) of the Act, as well as the following activities with respect to the Gulf of Mexico: ( 1 ) Marine and estuarine research.
( 2 ) Marine and estuarine ecosystem monitoring and ocean observation.
( 3 ) Data collection and stock assessments.
( 4 ) Pilot programs for fishery independent data and reduction of exploitation of spawning aggregations.
( 5 ) Cooperative research.
( b ) NOAA may also expend amounts made available from the Trust Fund for administrative expenses connected with the program. All funds must be expended in compliance with the Act, these regulations, and other applicable law.
###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter II](/current/title-31/chapter-II/subchapter-A)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at [78 FR 60697](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/78-FR-60697), Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 248.5 Exception to requirement of undertaking of indemnity Form 2244.

Notwithstanding the provisions of [§ 248.4](/on/2024-09-17/title-31/section-248.4), if in any case involving a financially responsible claimant it is impracticable to obtain the execution of Standard Form 2244, with or without sureties, the officer or employee responsible for handling the claim, in his discretion, may accept an undertaking of indemnity in the form of a written statement or letter, substantially as follows:

In consideration of the issuance of a substitute check in lieu of

(Check description)

and the payment of the substitute check, the undersigned undertakes and agrees to save harmless and indemnify the United States of America, its officers and agents, of and from any and all liability, loss, expense, claim, and demand whatsoever, arising in any manner by reason of or on account of said original check (or checks) or the stoppage or payment thereof, or the issue or payment of the substitute check (or checks), to replace the same.

The undertaking of indemnity should be appropriately witnessed, and if it is executed on behalf of a corporation or other business organization, the individual executing the same should furnish proof of this authority to so act. In appropriate cases, a foreign language translation of the foregoing letter of indemnity may be accepted.

[[25 FR 10869](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/25-FR-10869), Nov. 16, 1960. Redesignated at [39 FR 20969](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/39-FR-20969), June 17, 1974, as amended at [54 FR 35648](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/54-FR-35648), Aug. 29, 1989]
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 30, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASN/JES & Co., Tucson, AZ; Cambridge Assessment, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Hughes Network Systems, Germantown, MD; Iowa Community College Online Consortium (ICCOC), W. Burlington, IA; New Publishing Solutions, Sparta, NJ; Ubion Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea; and University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Editure, Education Technology Division, North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 16, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on May 21, 2009 (74 FR 23884).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-19885 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Altricia MUHAMMAD *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-1048

957 S.W.2d 186

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 8, 1998

*Gregory Bryant,*for petitioner.

No response.

Per Curiam.

The procedural background in this matter is set forth in our *per curiam*opinion delivered on December 11, 1997. *Muhammad v. State,*330 Ark. 759, 957 S.W.2d 692 (1997). Attorney Gregory Bryant, counsel for petitioner Altricia Muham*24mad, was ordered to appear before this court on January 8, 1998, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to file Ms. Muhammad’s brief in a timely manner. At his request, Mr. Bryant appeared on December 18, 1997, entered a plea of guilty to the contempt citation and accepted full responsibility for failing to file Ms. Muhammad’s brief.

Based on the foregoing, we hold that Mr. Bryant is in contempt of court for failing to file Ms. Muhammad’s brief in a timely manner. We assess a fine of $250.00 and direct that he file a belated brief in this matter within thirty days from the date this per curiam order is entered. A copy of this order will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Arnold, C.J., not participating.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JANIECIA BRIGGS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2022-2748

[February 29, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 562015CF000512B.

Janiecia Briggs, Ocala, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine Marie 

Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Arturo Ramos Zavala

# 				Arturo Ramos Zavala 			

				Local Law Enforcement			

Deceased				July 22, 2011			

Arturo Zavala Ramos, Local Law Enforcement assigned to the U.S. Consul General Protective Detail, died on July 22, 2011, in Monterrey, Mexico. His shooting death is thought to be related to his affiliation with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. **Please contact DS Public Affairs (dspublicaffairs@state.gov) if you have an image of this individual.**

****

Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialMexico

Back to Top