alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 398 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 399 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 400 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 401 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court
[398 EAL 2020, 399 EAL 2020, 400 EAL 2020, 401 EAL 2020 and 402 EAL 2020] - 2

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 402 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of April, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and 

the Motion for Appointment of New Counsel to File Direct Appeal from Superior Court 

Decision are DENIED.
#### Monroe McJunkins v. The State.

*No. 1195.*

*Decided February 3d, 1897.*

1. Information—Date of Offense Subsequent to Date of Kiling.

Where the information was filed the 21st of August, 1895, and alleged that the offense was committed 1st of September, 1895, nine days after the filing of the information. Held, the information was fatally defective.

2. Complaint and Information—Variance.

Where the complaint alleged the date of the offense to be September 1st, 1894, and the information alleged the date to be September 1st, 1895, the variance was fatal.

Appeal from the County Court of Navarro. Tried below before Hon. M. L. Shelton, County Judge.

Appeal from a conviction for theft of two cords of wood; penalty, a fine of §25.

No statement necessary.

[No briefs for either party have come to the hands of the Reporter.]

*Mann*Trice, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the theft of two cords of wood, and appeals. The complaint was filed in the County Court on May *1,*1895, charging that the defendant committed said theft on the 1st day of September, 1894. The information was filed on August 21, 1895, charging that the theft was committed on the 1st day of September, 1895. There are two fatal defects: First, it is charged in the information that the offense was committed nine days after the information was filed, and several months after the complaint was filed; and, second, the complaint charges the offense to have been committed on September 1, 1894, and the information charges it to have been committed on September 1, 1895. This variance is fatal, and the information is fatally defective in alleging that the offense occurred subsequent to the filing thereof. The judgment is reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.

*Reversed and Ordered Dismissed.*
Exhibit 32.2
   1.
    
    Our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2009, and to which this
Certification is attached (the Annual Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of our operations.
 By:
    
    /s/ Craig A. McCollamName: Craig A. McCollamTitle: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDated: August 28, 2009
# C_2005330EN.01001001.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 14 October 2005 in Johan Piek v Netherlands State (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, formerly Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries)

(Case C-384/05)

(2005/C 330/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden of 14 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Johan Piek and Netherlands State (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, formerly Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) on the following question:

| 1. | Does Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 preclude a national rule laid down in implementation of that provision which is framed in such a way that producers who have incurred investment obligations, regardless of whether or not that occurred under a development plan, may obtain a special reference quantity only if they incurred those investment obligations after 1 September 1981 but before 1 March 1984? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 preclude a national rule laid down in implementation of that provision which is framed in such a way that producers who have incurred investment obligations, regardless of whether or not that occurred under a development plan, may obtain a special reference quantity only if they incurred those investment obligations after 1 September 1981 but before 1 March 1984?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 cannot be answered in the round, which criteria determine whether the temporal limitation referred to in Question 1 is consistent with Regulation No 857/84? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 cannot be answered in the round, which criteria determine whether the temporal limitation referred to in Question 1 is consistent with Regulation No 857/84?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector. OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.606 Conditions for State allotments and Federal payments for a fiscal year. ( a ) *Basic conditions.* In order to receive a State allotment for a fiscal year, a State must have a State child health plan submitted in accordance with section 2106 of the Act, and ( 1 ) For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the State child health plan must be approved before October 1, 1999;
( 2 ) For fiscal years after 1999, the State child health plan must be approved by the end of the fiscal year;
( 3 ) An allotment for a fiscal year is not available to a State prior to the beginning of the fiscal year; and
( 4 ) Federal payments out of an allotment are based on State expenditures which are allowable under the approved State child health plan.
( b ) Federal payments for Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) expenditures under an approved State child health plan are— ( 1 ) Limited to the amount of available funds remaining in State allotments calculated in accordance with the allotment process and formula specified in §§ 457.608 and 457.610, and payment process in §§ 457.614 and 457.616.
( 2 ) Available based on a percentage of State CHIP expenditures, at a rate equal to the enhanced Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) for each fiscal year, calculated in accordance with § 457.622.
( 3 ) Available through the grants process specified in § 457.630.
[65 FR 33622, May 24, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010]
- PEPFAR Home
- About Us
- Our Priorities
- Where We Work
- Results and Impact
- Partnerships
- Remarks and Releases
- Reports and Guidance

HomeThe United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief...Partnerships

# Partnerships

Partnerships are the cornerstone of PEPFAR’s success. We need all sectors and diverse partners working together to achieve our collective goals.

PEPFAR works closely with partner countries toward achieving HIV/AIDS epidemic control while promoting the long-term sustainability of their responses. We forge strategic partnerships with the private sector that support and specifically complement our prevention, care, and treatment work addressing key gaps in innovative ways. We coordinate with multilateral partners, such as the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the World Health Organization, to optimize our investments, strengthen partner country leadership and sustainability, and enhance service delivery.

PEPFAR partners with and strengthens the capacity of civil society and communities, including faith-based communities and organizations [697 KB], recognizing that successful and sustainable HIV/AIDS interventions must involve, be informed by, and tailored to those who we serve.

PEPFAR partners with U.S. chiefs of mission globally and with the diplomatic corps in Washington, DC to advance global health diplomacy and connect health impacts to other U.S. foreign policy priorities, including economic growth, trade, education, and political stability.

PEPFAR seeks expert advice on scientific, implementation, and policy issues related to the global response to HIV/AIDS through its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), whose members are drawn from a broad array of external stakeholders representative of the global HIV/AIDS community.

## 							Discover More						

		Community Engagement		Read more 

January 20, 2021		Public-Private Partnerships		Read more 

January 20, 2021		Multilateral Cooperation		Read more 

June 11, 2020		Scientific Advisory Board PEPFAR		Read more 

Back to Top
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

t0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

140578

PASKA NUCULOVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 140578 COA: 280216 Macomb CC: 2 006-003647-NI JOHNNY DEAN HILL and SMART BUS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 5, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

M ARILYN 

### K ELLY 

### and H ATHAWAY



### , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
- Expo Unit Home
- About Us
- Expositions
- Hosting the World’s Fair
- Past U.S. Pavilions
- External Links

HomeExpo Unit...Past U.S. Pavilions

# 									Past U.S. Pavilions							

## Previous USA Pavilions

        - Dubai Expo 2020 (Archived  Website )
        - Astana Expo [17 MB]            - USA Pavilion Website 
          - Video: USAP 2017 
          - Video: USA Pavilion 2017 Overview, Our Story of Infinite Energy 
          - Video: USA Pavilion, Astana 2017  
        - Milan Expo [9 MB]  (Archived  Website )
        - Yeosu Expo [7 MB]  –  Overview Video 
        - Shanghai Expo [6 MB] (Archived  Website )
        - Aichi Expo [2 MB]
        - Lisbon Expo [18 MB]
        - Taejon Expo [12 MB]
        - Genoa Expo [12 MB]
        - Seville Expo [2 MB]
        - Brisbane Expo [20 MB]
        - Vancouver Expo [21 MB]
        - Tsukuba Expo [20 MB]
        - Knoxville Expo [17 MB]
        - Okinawa Expo [6 MB]
        - Osaka Expo [12 MB]
        - San Antonio Expo [7 MB]
        - Seattle Expo [19 MB]
        - Brussels Expo [3 MB]

Tags

Expo UnitPublic DiplomacyUnder Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Back to Top
EERE Information Center Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

## Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps Energy Conservation Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Following the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps energy conservation standard rulemaking. The NOPR is the second stage of the overall standards rulemaking process and will be followed by a final rule. At the NOPR stage, DOE presents the proposed standard levels and all the rulemaking analyses. Interested parties are invited to review the NOPR documents and the analytical tools, attend the public meetings, and submit comments on the analysis and proposed standard levels.

At the time of publication of the framework document, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) gave DOE authority to consider energy conservation standards for additional general service incandescent lamps under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(5). However, subsequent amendments to EPCA in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 removed that authority. Therefore, in the NOPR, DOE is considering amending existing energy conservation standards for general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps and whether to apply standards to additional general service fluorescent lamps.

The comment period for this stage of the rulemaking analysis closes 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. How to Submit Comments

. Some of the following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe Reader

. 

### Energy Conservation Standard
NOPR Public Meeting Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Public Meeting, January 12, 2009, as issued by the Secretary of Energy ( PDF 1.7 MB ) 

### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent and Incan... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/i...

1 of 2 1/29/2009 4:18 P MNOTE: The official version of the NOPR will be published in the Federal Register shortly. NOPR Technical Support Document NOPR Analytical Spreadsheet Tools



### Contact Information Linda Graves Lighting Standards Project Manager

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy| USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 01/28/2009 

### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Fluorescent and Incan... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/i...

2 of 2 1/29/2009 4:18 P M
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Darrell J. Harper v. State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 030

- C V

Date Motion Filed: April 30, 2018

Party Filing Motion: Appellant

, Darrell J. Harper

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown

.

Date: June 5 , 2018
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6778

BERNARD HARRY GRANT-BEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM L. SMITH; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-4-N)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 21, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Harry Grant-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Tarra R. DeShields-Minnis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date

Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it

would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v.

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). This date was May 3, 1996, and the

appeal period expired on May 1, 1996.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by

Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264

(1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229

(1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to

file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or

final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the

appeal period are when the district court extends the time to

appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal* or to

obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period

leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of

Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
HomeOur Priorities – PEPFAR...Populations

# Populations

## Reaching Those Who Are Often Being Missed

To achieve and sustain HIV/AIDS epidemic control, PEPFAR is committed to ensure all ages, genders, and at-risk populations know their HIV status, receive lifesaving HIV prevention and treatment services, and are virally suppressed if they are HIV-positive.

PEPFAR uses data to focus its investments on reaching the highest burden populations, many of which are too often being missed with HIV prevention and treatment services. Based on survey and program data, this requires particular attention on reaching children, including orphans and vulnerable children; adolescents; women under age 25; men under age 35, and key populations.

Next >> Partnerships

## 							Discover More About These Populations						

		Women and Girls		Read more 

		Children		Read more 

		Men		Read more 

		Key Populations		Read more 

Back to Top
Home2020 Treaties and Agreements...El Salvador (20-302) – Memorandum of Understanding on Import Restrictions

# 									El Salvador (20-302) – Memorandum of Understanding on Import Restrictions							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

March 2, 2020

Cultural Exchanges, Property and Cooperation: Import Restrictions

Signed at San Salvador March 2, 2020; entered into force March 2, 2020.
Download Agreement						 [404 KB]

Tags

Cultural ObjectsCultural PropertiesEl SalvadorTreaties

Back to Top
#### § 412.270 Witnesses.

Witnesses at an oral hearing testify under oath or affirmation, unless excused by the MGCRB for cause. The MGCRB may examine the witnesses and may allow the parties or their representatives to also examine any witnesses called.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Joint Statement on the U.S.-Arab League Strategic Dialogue

# 									Joint Statement on the U.S.-Arab League Strategic Dialogue							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

July 20, 2023

The United States and the Arab League concluded successful talks July 19 in Washington, D.C. on topics ranging from reducing tensions in regional conflicts, climate change and health security, information and communications technology infrastructure, universal values spelled out in the United Nations Charter, women’s economic empowerment, and countering terrorism and violent extremism in all their forms.  The Arab League and the United States released the below statement at the conclusion of the meeting.

*Begin text:*

We value the relationship between the Arab League and the United States and commit to increasing cooperation on mutually important issues including promoting peace, security, stability, integration, and economic prosperity.

We discussed a variety of important issues and crises including Middle East peace and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as other political crises in the region and the world. We also discussed a host of other topics such as nonproliferation and arms control, multilateral issues, the importance of secure information and communications technology infrastructure, as well as building resilience to climate change******and**improving public health intervention and health security in the Middle East.

We are encouraged by the common ground we have found on the importance of community engagement, building resilience to recruitment to violence, and supporting the role of education in countering radicalization to violence and terrorism. Together, we stand firm in our fight against ISIS/Daesh, al-Qa’ida, and all******other terrorist groups.

We strongly condemn any******threats, armed seizures, and attacks against commercial ships that interfere with navigational rights and freedoms in the strategic waterways of the region. We resolve to increase our commitment to pursue collective efforts to address threats to the security of vessels traveling through the region’s waterways that are critical to international trade and the global economy.

We resolve to work to ensure that women are economically empowered and engaged in decision-making processes.  We intend to work to ensure that COP28 in Dubai, for the benefit of the process, includes a diverse range of women’s voices. We share a mutual desire to continue pursuing health equity and security, upholding respect for human rights.

The United States and the Arab world share enduring economic, social, cultural, and people-to-people ties. We strongly believe that our shared commitment to investing in our peoples will reap dividends for the future generations of all Arab League member states and the United States. **

*End text*

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsClimate ChangeEconomic AffairsIsraelOffice of the SpokespersonPalestinian TerritoriesPeaceSecurityStrategic Dialogue

Back to Top
A^ U N I T E D 

V I \ .1 . 

. . 1 

-1 r 

September 1, 2010 

Ms. Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

Small Community Air Service Development Program 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis, X86-310 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Reference: DOT-0ST-2010-0124 

Dear Aloha, 

United Airlines, and its regional partners operating as United Express, are constantly evaluating new 

route opportunities. 

We have been considering the potential for new service from Kalispell, Montana and the Glacier Park 

International Airport to our hub at San Francisco International. 

One factor in our consideration of new route options is the availability of risk abatement and marketing 

support from the community. Kalispell and the Glacier Park International Airport have recently made 

application to the Small Community Air Service Development Program for Grant funding to support 

potential United Express service from Kalispell to San Francisco. 

The availability of Grant funding for risk abatement and marketing will be a factor in our consideration 

of new route and service options in 2011 and beyond. 

United Airlines supports KalispeW's appVtcation for Grant Program funding. 

Best regards. 

^ . 

Greg Kaldahl 

Vice President Planning